Winning The Argument On Welfare Means Never Giving An Inch To The Likes Of Katie Hopkins

katie-hopkinsWith the constant stream of benefit bashing stories in the national press it is often easy to believe that the argument is over – the public no longer support a social security system and the poor are despised.

Yet this over-simplifies people’s attitudes towards social security which in truth are varied and complex.  The most recent British Societal Attitudes survey shows that support for the welfare state is strong – 81% of people believe it is the Government’s responsibility to provide housing for those who need it, whilst 59% say that unemployed people should be provided with a decent standard of living.

This seems to contrast sharply with the hate-fest on social media which has accompanied Channel 4’s recent poverty porn production Benefits Street.  But an analysis of 5000 tweets posted during the second episode of the series (which is well worth reading) reveals that the picture is far from one-sided.

Predictably the analysis found many of the tweets were jokes, often aimed at the people featured in the show.  Whilst these may seem politically charged, especially in context of the current war on the poor, they should not be seen as indicating any deeply held political views.  Unpleasant and sexist jokes about one of the character’s breasts  – which made up 2% of tweets – do not necessarily indicate hostility towards the system of social security.  Neither in truth do remarks about the participants being scruffy (4.9% of tweets).

The episode of Benefits Street under discussion featured a group of Romanian immigrants and unsurprisingly this was a hot topic of discussion on social media.  As the analysis points out, this seems to have been a crude attempt by the programme makers to set up an increasingly familiar narrative of hard working immigrants versus lazy Brits.  This is a handy comparison for the right, allowing them to not just to use it as an argument to clamp down on benefits, but also to introduce ever more draconian immigration laws.

6% of the tweets fell into this trap, which fails to recognise the bleak reality that there are plenty of people in Romania and elsewhere like Fungi – the long term alcoholic featured in the show.  They are generally not the types to trek across Europe looking for a job.

Only 26 tweets out of 5000 made throughout the programme were found to contain threats of violence towards the participants of Benefits Street – although there’s no doubt that tweets like those below are hard to forget or ignore:

benefits-street-tweet1benefits-street-tweets2benefits-street-tweets3Depressingly only 2.8% of tweets expressed any sympathy for the residents of Benefits Street, although this may be more to do with the way the programme was edited than anything else.  This fact was not lost on many posting on social media  – 9.7% of tweets were critical of the company behind the show, Love Productions.

An even larger number of people tweeted what the analysis calls ‘balancing statements’, meaning comments designed to point out the reality of life on benefits along with criticism of this Government’s welfare reforms.  A further 6.7% of tweets were hostile towards politicians, predominantly Tories and often referencing the MP’s expenses scandal.  2.8% of people mentioned the Royal Family, the UK’s biggest benefit scroungers, whilst 3.4% of tweets focused on tax avoidance.

benefits-street-tweetsgraphAs the graph shows, the reaction to Benefits Street was far more nuanced then an initial glance at twitter would suggest.  The problem is that it’s the offensive, nasty or threatening comments which leap out.  A bit like Katie Hopkins and Edwina Currie on Channel Five’s Big Benefits Row this week, those who shout the loudest, and say the most outrageous things, set the tone of the debate about social security.  But they are not the majority.  Far from it.

What we should learn from this is that attempting to appeal to the braying anti-benefits mob with watered down demands and tacit acknowledgements of their ‘point of view’ is the path to surrender.  Calling for an end to bad benefit sanctions only, or for watered down workfare, only strengthens the hand of those who wish to eradicate social security completely.  As the mainstream left creeps closer to the right, the right bounds further away, taunting the liberal apologists to keep up.

We should not concede an inch to swivel-eyed monsters like Katie Hopkins and Edwina Curry and there is no need to.  Few people would disagree with the arguments that underpin the case for social security – that no-one should go hungry in one of the richest countries in the world, that everyone deserves a home they can afford, that disabled people should have financial support to live independent lives, that every mother is a working mother and perhaps most crucially of all – that there are no fucking jobs anyway.

Those are the arguments that everyone interested in saving the welfare state must make, not only loudly, but with pride.  And this means questioning capitalism, which will never provide a job for everyone and at the very least asking what are we going to do about that (it’s probably a touch optimistic to expect Citizens Advice or Shelter to call for violent revolution …  yet).

As poverty not seen in generations begins to emerge in the UK, then it is only by going back to basics that we will win the argument.  Charities, trade unions and Labour Party activists who are too timid to do that should get out of the fucking way.  The argument about the future of social security is really only just getting started.  When people see the carnage in the wake of Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms and the wider impact of austerity across Europe, then space will open up for radical demands.  It is happening already.  A compliant left, ever ready to compromise and sell out its values, will only prepare the ground for failure.  People are not stupid and they are not heartless, no matter how much this Government wishes they were.  And nobody really wants to be like Katie Hopkins.

Read the full analysis of the Benefits Streets tweets at:

Follow me on twitter @johnnyvoid

265 responses to “Winning The Argument On Welfare Means Never Giving An Inch To The Likes Of Katie Hopkins

  1. Katie Hopkins is a CUNT!!

    Fuck this Nazi bastard!!

  2. Landless Peasant

    The UK is becoming one of the worst countries in the world to live in.

  3. Benefits Street is a fucking crock of shite!!

  4. Very sad what this country has become. An uncaring kick someone when they’re down mentality pervades and is encouraged by all the main party’s, but particularly the deviant Tories.

    Used to be the Labour party stood up for the poor and the oppressed. Oh how times have changed. Nowadays they’re too busy dreaming up the ways they’re going to beat up the unemployed if/when they ever get back into power.

    Labour are now beneath contempt. They instructed the front bench of the party to collude with IDS’s bill to retroactively change the law regarding workfare to make what was deemed illegal in a court of law suddenly legal. Yes sir it’s true that was the Labour party that did that.

    They are now so far to the right of the political spectrum they’re almost Tories.

    • Only tiny groups like the TUSC and Left Unity stand up for us.

      • Yeah it’s all very sad. You know the only group that regularly pickets the local Atos office to protest against their inhumane treatment of sick people? Could it be a maverick Labour MP by chance? Not a bit of it! It’s our local Anarchist group. They are the only one’s who actually go up there and stand outside their office and make them feel ashamed of themselves. If they can feel anything at all that is, which i sincerely doubt.

  5. What makes you think we plan to bring in draconian immigration laws? Doing so would anger our donors in big business who rely on cheap labour from overseas,

    The British people can always go to the Department for Workhouses and Prisons

    • Do some research into Mode 4 Immigration. They would be exempt from income tax, national insurance etc and just about everything else. I suspect the point of the benefits cap is to clear room for them from the cities. Watch carerfully as Labour leave the benefits cap in place.

  6. katie hopkins looks like she is struggling to have a crap, mind you she is full of shit anyway

  7. Katie Hopkins – WTF?

    Why do the likes of ‘This Morning’ even allow such a vile venom spouting piece of filth on their programmes?

    I wouldn’t mind so much if she had even one single redeeming quailty – but she [or it] doesn’t!

  8. She’s boring to watch. I switch over whenever I see her spouting her rubbish.

  9. I once had the misfortune to catch part of a “debate” which involved Ms Hopkins describe how she didn’t want her children playing with children who had certain NAMES! In the flats where I lived there was a little girl called Camilla. Would she pass the test?

    • something survived...

      Or she’d wet herself in fear if her children had to be within 200 metres of
      kids called Kulvinder, Darren, or LaTeesha.

      I know a good job for Ms Hopkins. Put her in a time machine, plait her hair, stick her in one of those skimpy ‘Bavarian Barmaid’ costumes. Send her to the front row of a Hitler parade. Children, Church, Kitchen.
      The top ‘Aryan maidens’ got married off to the top SS officers so they could have ‘perfect children’ for the Third Reich. And the ‘luckiest’ girls got invited back to Hitler’s place and told to play beating and piss games…

      Parliament question: “There is a rusting Russian hulk full of cannibal rats drifting towards the UK.”
      Suggested answer: Put IDS, hate-y (Katie) Hopkins, Hayley Taylor, Nigel Farrage, Nick Griffin, Steven ‘wing bitch’ Yaxley-Lennon/Tommy Robinson,
      Michael Gove, Grant Shapps, Eric Pickles, David Cameron (…)
      in it.
      Give those poor rats something else to eat!

      • my name is Darren!! at least Katie Hopkins or her children will stay at least 200m away from me, and good thing too for her safety!

  10. Right on, Johnny, but where do we start? I’d expected the attack on the working class to have had a reaction by now but we seem to be able to put up with all the crap that the politicians throw at us, mostly through brainwashing by the gutter-press. How can the people stand up for themselves?.

  11. im just going to kill some kittens.

  12. How the feck do such stupid people (Katie Hopkins) get on tv.
    We have a serious problem when the media becomes 100% Jeremy Kyle like.

    • something survived...

      Jeremy Vine (if that’s who it was) looks like him though. Sounds like him a bit. Acted like him. As soon as left wing people said something he talked over them, cut to commercials, or showed clips of Benefits Street.

  13. Woah…demonic pic heh heh

  14. Personally I would not give Katie Hopkins six inches for a bet.

    • something survived...

      6 feet covered by concrete ought to do it but don’t forget the stake first.

      • A stake through the heart and concrete won’t be enough. If Japanese Knotweed can survive potent herbicides and can grow through concrete, then rancid boot-face Hopkins won’t have any trouble resurrecting herself.

  15. She’s got some neck, that Hopkins bitch……Just saying!

  16. Landless Peasant

    btw, personally I’ve never even heard of Katie Hopkins!

    • personally i think her moronic comments do us a favour really.

    • overburdenddonkey

      l p
      nor had i…..but i can say that curry and hopkins, believe that they are owed lavish lifestyle, that is why they shout so loud, and say what is designed to shock….attention seekers, to drown out all voices of reason so that they command the agenda, foot stamping tantrums, of, i want,i want…. ….they believe that they should be served….a massive sense of without cause, entitlement, is what they have….best fcuking ignored, that’s what they are…

    • I had never heard of her, so I googled her, I was not missing anything, and I am happy to know no more about her!

  17. katie hopkins is the local bag lady and mad woman, repulsive ,grimaceing,gurning,eye rolling ,head bobbing,hand flayling ,shreiking,screaming .jibber jabber mad hate filled nonescence….same with edwina curry,lol but she,s able to control her madness slightly better though watching her snarling ..we cant afford it we cant afford it..your not trying hard enough..both thease women[so called] should be sectioned indefinately or youthanised…….now,lol

  18. Katie Hopkins – great, great grand-daughter of Matthew Hopkins – the Witchfinder General. Surprise, surprise!

  19. I suppose Peter Stringfellow was in the audience hoping to get some freebie young ladies to strip naked in his clubs as part of their workfare obligations!

    • something survived...

      Stringfellow (is that what that dried out old kipper was then?) might end up getting women sent to lap dance for him on workfare – 64 year old women.

  20. overburdenddonkey

    pensioners are the biggest welfare recipients, followed by people in work …..+ the ESC says we are 40% short in our benefit entitlement payments…. 2.6% of the welfare budget goes on jsa….yes 2.6%….pensions get 43%….and as i have said the ESC states categorically that this is not enough!

  21. I watched the benefits row on tv, & I wonder what planet Katie hopkins is living on!

  22. she looks like she is having a shit,she wants to get her own house in order

  23. So very glad I haven’t owned a television since the CRT days…

    But even you are giving a little ground to these bastards (bear with me) – when you point out “there are no jobs”, you implicitly accept that this degree of evil would be acceptable if there were more jobs to go to than people to do them. It wouldn’t. That premise is theirs, and it’s unacceptable. Whether there are 57 people chasing every job or 57 jobs for every person – there will ALWAYS be some people who, for whatever reason, cannot access the labour market. And their (our!) lives are valuable too.

    Ultimately the right wing argument always comes down to “some lives are worth more than others”. And they have a whole seductive stack of examples of people who might be readily agreed to be worth less than you… but give ANY ground on that AT ALL, and you might as well throw the whole argument. Look at the person you most revile in all the world, and try to remember that their life is worth as much as your own. Difficult, isn’t it? But it’s the only way to avoid discovering one day that someone in a position to do so has ruled that both of you are equally disposable.

    (Somewhere Labour forgot this. Maybe that’s why they’re in so much trouble now?)

    • overburdenddonkey

      just p
      to goad people to get jobs when there are none, is absolutely evil…all we actually want is our vitals of life, but we now have to jump through many, many, more hoops to get them, than it is natural to do….pro-rata this evil pressure diminishes when more decently paid work is out there….or are you implicitly accepting the level of evil of where we are at now?
      this level of evil that exists, attempts to convince the casual bystander/unemployed person that there are plenty of jobs available, when there are not, and if only people made the efforts then people would have work…but people are desperate for work even in so called times of high/fuller employment people still want good jobs, and even high/fuller employment is no guarantee of good jobs..the jobs market framework has always been anti-worker, pro-boss, but less evil when more jobs exist..the jobs market is even more frustrating when people are told that work is out there, and it is not..
      but if what i say does not convince you then offer a solution?
      we cannot return overnight to skara brea…hell has been a long time in the making…the implicit acceptance is the the jobs market is evil, but is less so in times of near full employment…my solution is to accept high levels of unemployment and pay decent no strings benefits, and/or land available for all, to subsist on…

      • Er, I’m not sure what you think I said, but I think it’s rather different from what I thought I said. Because there’s no way on earth I’d disagree that goading people to get jobs when there aren’t any is evil.

        I just think that calling people who don’t have jobs lazy scroungers when there are plenty jobs available is equally evil. And I imagine you’d probably agree with that.

        • overburdenddonkey

          just p
          i was clarifying my relative generic position to yours…but note you have not offered a solution to the problem, that you highlighted in your post above….which is a point frozen in time ie where we are now…

          • Oh, I’m nowhere near arrogant enough to imagine I can come up with an answer.

            However, one thing I see very clearly is that the employer/employee relationship is inherently exploitative; the employer always seeks to derive more value from the employee than the compensation paid. No point otherwise, and attempting to persuade employers to remedy it will only bankrupt them. It has to be fixed at a societal level, by breaking the economic coercion that gives employers that power over their employees. A basic income for all, paid from taxation (flat percentage or graduated) on income and inactive capital, is one approach to that, and it has the advantage of having been demonstrated to be successful in a several-year trial; but there may well be other routes to the same goal.

            (Oddly enough, right wing libertarians also favour a basic income; they just say its level should be 0. As far as I’m concerned, if they can be persuaded to concede on that point, they can have everything else they want – but that would require them to acknowledge the existence of economic coercion, and being the crypto-authoritarians they are they’d rather chew their own arms off.)

            • Just passing

              Is quantative easing not economic coercion? The rich don’t need a basic income but they would take it nevertheless if it was put in place, just as they are taking from the welfare state even though they are not in a state of need, which the welfare state was set up for and was universal only if those drawing from it were in need.

              Markets are being manipulated daily, the workforce are manipulated by employers and the ignorant by the right wing media. Coercion seems to be in the in word at the moment along with complicity.

              • Pervyn Ming (Bank of England)

                🙂 .

              • It’s not Mervyn King anymore we have gone Canadian, it is Shark Carney.

                • Gordon Brown - Prime Minister

                  lol someone really need to keep up to date with who is at the helm of the BoE lol 🙂

              • Quantative easing? Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Wealth isn’t a question of who has the most pretty bits of landfill; it’s a relative matter.

                You seem to be arguing against the idea of universal benefits. That’s an interesting idea. Do you not see how the erosion of that principle has led us – and will always lead any attempt to establish a social security net – to exactly this place, where the net is lowered ever closer to the ground and its holes made ever wider? Simply put, if benefits aren’t established on a constitutionally universal basis, they will always be political footballs, vulnerable to the whims of those with the wealth and power that would otherwise be redistributed by such a system. You don’t need anything but a pair of eyes to see that.

                So yes, by all means, let’s have someone earning £250,000 a year claiming their full basic income. After all, they’ll be paying at least half that figure back in taxes. I imagine they’ll resent that a whole lot less if they get to see exactly what it means.

                • who cares what those who are earning £250k resent, because they know that the welfare state system is not applicable to them because they are earning over and above the claimant threshold, so they want to introduce a new system of basic income which allows them to claim and still earn vast amounts. That is the reason for the austerity being imposed on benefits, to hasten basic incomes introduction, but I can tell those that will be left on basic income only,will find it to their detriment.

                  I think we should be taking this government to task over reducing and capping benefits, they obviously cannot get a mandate legally to end welfare for those that are legitimate claimants so they are trying to privatize it by the back door as with the NHS.

            • overburdenddonkey

              just p
              i don’t see why it would be arrogant to offer solutions to problems…whenever one makes critical comment, one must also have a solution/remedy to hand, therefore at least a knowledge of how we arrived at/to this position ie alternatives…the indicative there are no jobs, does not imply that cruelty is/would be justified if there were jobs available…it merely observes the futility of the one sided/one way valve, job seeking system, the onus being dumped on the claimant to provide work, affordable housing, and actually the implicit demand that we must also control inflation, the arrival of/to a point at which we have been heading since at least 1979….evil only really becomes a problem, when it prevents free access to vitals of life, all that this entails…we have almost reached the buffers in all points of the social engineering that has been in progress for 3 decades or more..we need to untangle this wicked web of deceit, without delay…

              • well said obd.

              • I profoundly disagree that one must have a solution before one points out the problem. For one thing, such an insistence leads to defining the problem in terms of its possible solutions, which is arse-backwards and limiting. For another thing, sometimes the whole point is that there ARE no easy solutions – that the problem exists in the trade-off between competing, incompatible objectives.

                As regards arrogance, that was a response to the idiots currently defining public policy, not to you.

                For the substance: Do you disagree that saying “there are no jobs” implicitly concedes the potential for restricting benefits if there were? If so, you haven’t explained why.

                Or do you simply think that the concession isn’t significant? Again, if so, you haven’t explained why.

                So basically, I don’t understand your objections. And being autistic, I NEED to understand things before I can consider them!

                Or perhaps you just think that I’m the protruding nail that needs to be hammered back in? That’s not new to me, but it is unpleasant. So I hope it isn’t that.

                • overburdenddonkey

                  just p
                  i’ll consider what you have posted…..but, my health problems need my full attention atm….

                • overburdenddonkey

                  ps just p
                  i will just add this, picture a scene in an 80’s labour exchange..the Q to sign on, an almost casual affair by today’s standards, get to the window one was asked a couple of questions, “sign here”…it became clear that mass unemployment was here to stay, instead of a logical conclusion of accepting this…the intensity to find work was increased the same “but there is no work”, was agonisingly expressed by claimants, but the pressure was increased and increased and increased on the claimant..the same cry “but there is no work” was consistently heard….then come jobseekers allowance, and the bullying intensified the same cry went up “but there is no work”….bullying the claimant provides no extra work not then not now…if there are decent jobs out there people take them….as jobs fell out of the jobs market pro-rata the bullying has intensified till we are at today’s bullying crescendo…..bullying has produced not one single extra job, work is either out there or it isn’t….politicians constantly try to claim economic recovery and try to stop people from making claim or to bully people off of benefits, this scheme or that scheme, workfare et al, which is the real reason for the bullying….it has little or nothing to do with people finding work coz there are no jobs, people find work more effectively under their own steam, if work is indeed available….closing down vast swaths of british industry and sell off’s did not improve the jobs market, but made things even worse….this is my final answer to you on this subject…

                • overburdenddonkey

                  🙂 …

              • *standing ovation*
                Very well put obd!

              • Sorry Guy Fawkes, but I just don’t get the objection to Basic Income in principle. Universal benefits have been found to be the fairest and the most cost-effective. The problem comes when you make them conditional and so many strings attached. They need to be a decent amount and unconditional. Personally, I’d rather a few toffs getting free bus passes than the other scenario where the poor, sick and vulnerable are means tested with ever more hoops to stagger through.

                • Moggy

                  A decent amount of basic income? This government is saying a decent amount of basic income is unsustainable at the moment for those dependent on benefits which could only be considered too high because of greedy landlords and ineligible claimants who are not in need of benefits,so please tell me HOW IT WILL BE AFFORDABLE if paid universally to all?

                  If you believe the need for austerity on benefits, which I don’t, then a system you are suggesting would not be attainable without someone losing out.

                  If we change the welfare state system for a universal basic income, I reiterate those at the basic level who cannot find work will neither have a secure income nor any inherent rights built into them that could not be changed by unscrupulous politicians.

                • @Guy Fawkes
                  This government will say what crap they like. Of course they will say a basic income is unsustainable when their policies are always to dole out cuts to the wealthiest and clobber the poorest. It won’t be affordable to all if you’re operating within this government’s paradigm but I’m not nor ever have accepted this government’s world view. The Green party talked about a Basic Income Scheme as long ago as the 1980s. Of course it’s affordable once you get rid of the premise that the rich have to get richer and be given huge tax breaks.

                  Don’t put words into my mouth. I’ve never believed in austerity on benefits, on the contrary. They’re not nearly generous enough and have greatly declined in real terms in the last thirty years.

                  The losers would be the obscenely rich. So what?

                • Moggy

                  How would the losers be the obscenely rich with a basic universal income in place.
                  Trying to get money out of the rich is like trying to get blood out of a stone, that is why they vote tory to keep taxes low and other benefits flowing in their direction otherwise if the propaganda is to be believed, they will leave the country for greener pastures – where will that leave the greens policy then?

                  When I stated ‘if you believe the need for austerity’ I was referring to the propaganda, not trying to put words into your mouth, but I am sorry, as heartfelt as you are about this proposed system, I do not think it would work and it would be the RICH that would once again be the beneficiaries not the poor in every way which I have already stated.

                • Guy Fawkes,
                  I’m starting from a different premise from you. You’re starting from one that doesn’t believe there’s an alternative. It’s difficult to believe there can’t be an alternative in the present climate. But the only thing that makes sense to me is for everyone to have a basic income. It doesn’t matter to me if some are richer than others but it is only in the last thirty years that the inequality between rich and poor has ‘spiralled out of control’ to coin a phrase usually used in another context. If you’ve read the Spirit Level about how greater equality benefits all members of society, including the wealthiest, then actually even they don’t have to be losers. (I did a blog on the highlights from the book if you’re interested). It wasn’t always like this and it won’t always be. Tides turn, things become unsustainable.

                • Moggy

                  Tell me why it would make sense to have a universal income?

                  Just how would you finance it?

                  Up until welfare reform by labour then the tories, welfare was not great, but according to those that are hoping to benefit and push for change, it is not meant to be, otherwise people would choose it as a lifestyle choice (according to the propagandists).

                  You say you are coming from a different premiss and that a basic income means the unemployed can choose not working as a lifestyle choice, because it would pay a BASIC income for such people, but would benefit those that had wealth and earnings on top and could well be subjected to depletion or conditionality once it has been implemented.

                  Lets get real here, you betray yourself to be a typically middle class person, some of which have not only income from their employment, but may have money in the bank and perhaps a property other than their residential home that they rent out, so a basic income would do them very nicely thankyou very much, and why should you worry if there are people richer, which is a change of tune from “whats wrong with taxing the extremely wealthy guff you gave me earlier.”

                  Why can we not have a basic income based on need not greed i.e. only those that are in need get a decent basic income with no conditionality -in other words take away all of the hurdles that have been put onto the unemployed since the Blair government were elected by the middle class. If you really had the poor at heart,those who may never work again, you would not be angling for a universal income from which the middle and upper class would benefit more than the poor.

                • overburdenddonkey

                  we already have a benefits system for those without any other form of income….increase payments, remove sanctions and conditionality, bring housing cost inflation down, cap rents…the money saved in admin staff by dwp, the nhs et the IR can harvest the blns in unpaid taxes, close tax loop holes…the new unconditional benefits system will be self financing…no strings benefits is cost effective…the poor will become richer and the rich poorer….

                • Er don’t dare to make assumptions about me or put words into my mouth. Wtf have you got against a universal income? It’s late so I need to go to bed, plus I am on ES Support so don’t give me all the lectures and twaddle.

                  What a crass thing to say ‘it’s not meant to be’. Give up why don;t you but I’ve been signing on since the seventies so know how it was then before Thatcher. I don’t give a fuck what the propaganderists say because I fight them tooth and nail, I don’t lie down and take all their shite about lifestyle choice.

                  Some of us don’t believe in being forced to work or the work ethic. Does a basic income mean people don’t work? Course it doesn;t. It means that people work because they want to work and get paid over and above the basic income. it means that fucking artists and writers and poets and musicians and people doing volunatry work and caring for other s and bringing up kids are VALUED for what they do. That’s what I’m talking about. I’m talking about a whole DIFFERENT concept that you can’t seem to get your head round. You’re as bad as the Con Dems assuming people don’t want to work but need to be bullied into it. I don’t believe that. I believe people do want to do work (but I’m talking about work in the widest sense) and work that is meaningful and well paid but the mistake is to ATTACH how you spend your time to HOW MUCH you’re worth. It’s bollox. I will never subscribe to that. So I can push for a better world. Can you?

                  Who fucking said anything about a basic income based on greed not need? I didn’t so stop putting fucking words into my mouth. The NHS was a universal concept whatever a person’s income – that’s the universality I’m talking about which you don’t seem able to grasp so don’t keep coming back with your preconceptions and misinterpretaions of what I’m saying. “If you really had the poor at heart,those who may never work again, you would not be angling for a universal income from which the middle and upper class would benefit more than the poor.” – does not make any fucking sense to me either. I am on the fucking side of the poor, always have been.

                • I agree with you OTDonkey – my last reply was to Guy Fawkes and not not you.

                • overburdenddonkey

                  it’s ok, don’t worry i knew that…

                • overburdenddonkey

                  ps moggy
                  i knew that you were replying to g fawkes, and not me…

                • Moggy

                  Moggy is certainly a good word for you,you have the language of an alley cat or a gutter snipe.
                  You are the one that needs to reassess what you are angling for and how you would intend to fund a universal income, which would take away any inherent rights that exist within the welfare system we now have as OBD touched on.
                  If welfare reform and conditionality was reversed then there would be no need for change except excluding those rich enough from welfare which this government was beginning to touch on and why there has been such a raucous from the middle class.
                  IF IT AIN’T BROKEN THEN DON’T TRY TO FIX IT with a new system.

                • @Guy Fawkes
                  Let me spell it out simply for you. I am NOT talking about Universal Chaos if that’s what YOU are babbling on about. I am FOR the welfare state as WAS but the ‘inherent rights that exist within the welfare system’ – sorry I prefer to use Social Security – have been eroded and eroded until it is all conditionality and means-tested and LESS universal than ever. The clue was in that I AGREE with what OBD said but for some reason you don’t seem to get your brain cell around that. Reversing conditionality and welfare reform, Yes, i never wanted ‘reform’ (a euphemism for cuts) in the first place but it is a dying animal and needs to go back to what it was or actually be something much more revolutionary. A basic income for all, children, everyone. it’s doable, it’s affordable. Think outside the box.

                  I have just been talking to somebody much more knowledgeable than you about this, he knows his stuff, and yes, he confirmed that universal benefits are the fairest and the most cost-effective. Why? Because it cuts down on bureauocracy and it means that everyone gets it. Once you introduce means-tested benefits (which is just what the government wants) you get a huge reduction in uptake. Look at DLA. Millions then go unclaimed to those who NEED it. Do you for one moment in your wildest dreams think that taking away the universal benefits from those who don’t need it is going to stop there? Are you so hopelessly naive that you think the government will STOP at the wealthier pensions? It’s the slippery slope. They’ve only not touched pensioners who account for 50% of welfare budget so far because they are worried about losing the ‘grey’ vote. And where the hell of you been for the last ten years if you think the system ain’t broke? Successive governments have broken it so they can privatise it.

                  You say ‘Some people are still working voluntary without being forced to now’ – er have you not heard how people are being mandated to do government-approved voluntary work in places like BHF shops? Do you not read Johnny’s blogs properly? Forced voluntary work is a contradiction. How can people be mandated to do voluntary work. Have you not heard about people having to give up their voluntary work just to go on the work progranme even if that vol work helps them get a job? Did you not remember the case of Cait Reilly? Do you not realize either that carers are losing their pittance of carers allowance as DLA is cut drastically?

                  But the biggest laugh I had to have was you saying that a basic income would be unfair to artists! I am in this position myself. How I wish society valued its creative artists enough to give them a basic income instead of not counting it as ‘real work’. Tax credits for the self-employed helped with this but now the Illicit Dole Slasher Dungheap Smith wants proof of earning a minimum wage so how is the scrapping of tax credits as they are now going to help? A universal unconditional income and being able to earn on top of that is the fairest way.

                • PS A basic income paid to every citizen would also be unfair because couples would benefit financially over single parents and others and nobody would be paying in the amount that they would be taking out or that would be defeating the object of a basic income.
                  Some people are still working voluntary without being forced to now or caring for the sick and elderly and receiving allowances so why you made an argument for them as if I don’t care about such, because I don’t think a universal basic income would be so beneficial to such people.

                  I think you are naive if you do not think a basic income would not be unfair to the people you purport to care about, the musician, the poet, the artist can be all those things now if the welfare system allows those that can earn a little extra on top of benefits to keep it, but the market for the arts is so competitive most are finding it hard to survive let alone make a decent income from it.

                  Until you speak to me without the need to profane your points to me then I will refuse to reply in future.

                • error- if you do not think a basic income WOULD be unfair

                • raucous should be ruckus

                • Moggy

                  I have heard of all of the drastic measures that have been taken in an effort to cut peoples benefits and if you have been following this site for some time you would know that I have been totally opposed and would like to see a reversal of the cuts that have been made to those that are eligible and do fit the claimant criteria, certainly not those that are not eligible due to the fact that welfare was only ever meant to be universal in as much that you were in need of it, the same as the NHS which has been abused by those people who for vanity reasons want breast implants etc. If there is a lot of unclaimed benefits that could be due to those who have a conscience and know that they are earning too much to be eligible for any handout.

                  If you think that this government will stop at nothing to cut benefits to those that are genuinely in need of them, why would they not do the same with a basic income? the deserving and undeserving poor, those who will or those who won’t work, those that are benefitting financially from their work being more worthy of a basic income than those that are not.
                  Those that make the biggest contribution to any scheme think they have the biggest say in it – even if it is called universal they will still find a way to bring in conditionality – you are the one that is naive.

                  So I think me and my one brain cell, no matter who you bring in to say it would be more equitable, more affordable or more fair are not convinced by your arguments and still feel it would benefit as usual the middle and upper class more than it would the working and non-working class.

                • Guy Fawkes – you are totally wrong that

                  *if there is a lot of unclaimed benefits that could be due to those who have a conscience and know that they are earning too much to be eligible for any handout* .

                  Fact- The biggest reason for unclaimed benefits is lack of knowledge of their existence. I myself could have claimed DLA for years if I’d known about, the same for thousands of others. That is the main problem with means-tested benefits.

                  In answer to *If you think that this government will stop at nothing to cut benefits to those that are genuinely in need of them, why would they not do the same with a basic income?*

                  I am not talking about this shit-hole of a government – I’m talking about what SHOULD be in place and what is FAIR. You are talking from a stance of this shit-hole’s governments ideals eg deserving/undeserving eg conditionality eg those who can work but won’t etc etc. I reject all those concepts from the off. You sound as if you have accepted them. I am talking about an ideal solution and that would involve a government with a totally different mindset eg like Left Unity or the Green Party. Even in other European countries they don’t have fiasco that our Social Security system has become (yet).

                  In answer to your:

                  *Those that make the biggest contribution to any scheme think they have the biggest say in it – even if it is called universal they will still find a way to bring in conditionality*

                  Does that apply then to people have paid in NI contributions for many years only to find they’ve now been duped? They don’t want conditionality to be given their ESA which is their entitlement.

                  Come back when you have read a lot more round the subject and can come up with an effective counter-argument because all your arguments have thus far been shot down in flames.

                • My arguments have been replied by you, but only you are arrogant enough to think that they have been shot down in flames.
                  Grow up for Gods sake.
                  Even if left unity or the green party ever got into power and implemented your basic income, they could just as well be ousted by other partiesthat could then impose conditionality to your system.

                  You totally ignore my comments that state I am not in favour of and have fought against conditionality imposed by this government, preferring instead to twist what I was saying regarding the state of play by all the 3 main parties, to make it look like I am accepting of their policies, which is an absolute load of crap, neither do I buy into yours.

                  You are the one who is sticking your head in the sand or putting it into the clouds where your ideology is, not me, unfair and unjust ideology I might add and I need to read up on nothing related to what you believe in.

                  When you talk of NI contributions and how the people have been duped, of course they have and that is what I am saying to those who think they can introduce a system that will not be changed out of all recognition somewhere down the line, but you chose to ignore that fact, preferring to throw insults at me instead.

                  Just what kind of an artist are you, because the words con and p..s come to mind?

                  I refuse to carry on commenting on your pipe dreams, argue with yourself.

                • Don’t spit your dummy out at me just because you can’t debate reasonably.

                  Anybody with a scrap of intelligence would go and check out the facts first. Just google it. here’s one such article:


                  If you’re capable of reading anything that doesn’t come out of your own arse.

                  I don ‘t know what you’re even arguing with me about. I don’t even know what you’re calling for. Your muddle-headed and lacking in the facts sort of IDS style springs to mind.

                  *Slow hand clap* well done, playing right into the government of divide and rule. It’s not ‘my basic income’. Go into some of the radical books on Facebook of which there are many and see many people will buy your crap. Oh hang on, no. You might hear another point of view that opposes your blinkered one and you’ll be shot down in flames not by one but a hundred times over.

                  You’re the arrogant one. Of course you know it all. You couldn’t possibly think that some very intelligent thinking people might have come up with an unconditional basic income scheme as the only sustainable way.

                  *When you talk of NI contributions and how the people have been duped, of course they have and that is what I am saying to those who think they can introduce a system that will not be changed out of all recognition somewhere down the line*

                  So what are you arguing about then? In only gave that as an example in response to something nonsensical and contradictory you said in your last post.

                  I can’t be arsed with this any more. One day you’ll wake up and feel such a fool for arguing against something so fundamental to human existence.

                • it is not fundamental to rich peoples human existence! They will probably use it to employ you as their cleaner since you are stupid enough to fall for their crap.

                • Didn’t even bother to click on the link did you? Thought not. Because you’d have seen your stupid line of non-reasoning for what it is. Guy Fawkes? That’s a joke, you’re no revolutionary, you’re defending all the Tory ideas of means-tested benefits. Tory troll

                • I think anyone who wants to give an income to the rich is the one that can be considered to have tory leanings.
                  You are the troll!

                • Seeing as you’re incapable of clicking on a link I’m gonna have to spoon-feed you:

                  “One of the great strengths of universal benefits is that they create a sense of solidarity and shared understanding. Means tested benefits create the opposite, divisions and misunderstanding.

                  When benefits are universal it means that there are better placed people concerned to fight for them. That has always been one of the strengths of child benefit. When benefits are means tested, they lose these advocates and the most disadvantaged, with much weaker voices, don’t have the political clout to ensure that they stay sufficiently resourced and constantly uprated. It’s a vicious circle.

                  Of course, there’s the argument that getting rid of universal benefits means that the jam can be spread more fairly. Please show me one example where cuts made in one valued service ever resulted in politicians spending more on another valued service.

                  Speaking as someone who had the misfortune to spend years living on means tested benefits and was delighted to be able to escape them, I’d also ask how many of those who proclaim their virtues have anything other than an ideological interest in the issue.

                  Put another way, how many of them have ever had to rely for any length of time on such benefits or go through the process of getting them? Not many I would suggest. The rest of us should steer clear of them too.”

                  That is only one paragraph. This is my last comment on the subject. Fortunately I’m going to be offline until next week so I won’t have to read any more of your misinformed drivel. Any more comments that come through my emails I’m deleting before reading them so go away, have the humility and graciousness to realize you are wrong on this matter and there are others out there eg the writer of the article you couldn’t be arsed to click on who know much more than you do.

                • So presumptuous as usual i.e. “There are people out there who know a lot more than you do”, I am sure there are but usually they are clever enough to propose a system out of self interest and I am referring to the middle and upper classes with regards to universal income.
                  not only are they usually a two income family, but both on high salaries, have personal or inherited wealth, perhaps a property that they rent out and they still want a universal basic income each for husband, wife and children, while those without WORTHWHILE work and I don’t mean cleaning someone else’s toilet, are left to wither away on basic income only.
                  DON’T MAKE ME LAUGH!

                  To state we want such people on side is an insult to those that genuinely have the interests of the poorest in society at heart, without giving themselves yet more wealth by making any basic income universal.
                  Unconditional Basic income should go to the poorest in society and to do this there has to be means testing, not to the point where you are depriving someone an extra bedroom or forcing people on a treadmill of fruitless job seeking, after all most of the real work throughout history that built roads, sewerage/water systems, homes etc were all done on the back of slaves or the low paid, so they are owed the right to a decent welfare system, not the type the Cameron and IDS or Blair before them have created.
                  YOU NEED NOT REPLY

                • PS If anyone needs spoon feeding it is you, on WHO welfare systems were created for and WHY, then come back and tell me it was for the rich and your reasons why – so that they can be wealth creators for themselves?
                  It’s time you were gracious enough to admit defeat, despite the fact you CLAIM to have been on means tested benefits for years, you clearly know nothing of poverty, you were probably one of those that were claiming benefits you were not entitled to.

    • “Big industry constantly requires a reserve army of unemployed workers for times of overproduction. The main purpose of the bourgeois in relation to the worker is, of course, to have the commodity labour as cheaply as possible, which is only possible when the supply of this commodity is as large as possible in relation to the demand for it, i.e., when the overpopulation is the greatest. Overpopulation is therefore in the interest of the bourgeoisie, and it gives the workers good advice which it knows to be impossible to carry out. Since capital only increases when it employs workers, the increase of capital involves an increase of the proletariat, and, as we have seen, according to the nature of the relation of capital and labour, the increase of the proletariat must proceed relatively even faster. The… theory… which is also expressed as a law of nature, that population grows faster than the means of subsistence, is the more welcome to the bourgeois as it silences his conscience, makes hard-heartedness into a moral duty and the consequences of society into the consequences of nature, and finally gives him the opportunity to watch the destruction of the proletariat by starvation as calmly as other natural event without bestirring himself, and, on the other hand, to regard the misery of the proletariat as its own fault and to punish it. To be sure, the proletarian can restrain his natural instinct by reason, and so, by moral supervision, halt the law of nature in its injurious course of development.” –

      — Karl Marx, Wages, December 1847

  24. something survived...

    Hayley Taylor was on the show but disagreed with Hopkins though both are on the same side. Actually Taylor hasn’t a clue about people on benefits either. Jack Monroe didn’t get to say much before she got cut off. They didn’t say (re. Benefits Street part 2) that the Romany, and Romanian, immigrants got bullied out by locals/racists, and chased away by gangs (Romanian) trying to attack or kill them. Though they had no power or cooker they were one of the best behaved families, I know the government crack down on scrap dealing, but they were trying to a)clean up the street/ make use of rubbish, b) make money. If from Romania (citizens) they have every right to. 5 million Brits are expats, 1 million in Spain. More abroad temporarily as students or workers, not in this number. Brits are buying up homes in Slanchev Bryag/Sunny Beach, Bulgaria – without questioning their right to be there, the impact on local house costs for Bulgarians, etc.
    If someone actually leaves rubbish around (whatever their background), just talking to them on how to do it properly, would help. Or talking to people to say hi, welcome to our street etc. They got help in the end from an Asian guy in the street. (gave food, helped with cooking)

    Some of the best comments were ones that got shouted over. Somebody said: actually graduates with firsts can’t get jobs, and end up working cleaning toilets or with no job at all. There are no jobs…. or ones that pay less than benefits and everything you earn is taken off you. They didn’t properly look into the fact benefits are not enough to actually live on and people now go 3, 4, 5 days without a single meal, in order to pay their rent or pay most or some of their rent.

    ‘Benefits’ is a misnomer because they are meant to be good, but it sounds like ‘dog treats’ only for when a ‘good dog’ sits up and begs. They should either give us enough to live on, or more; or should change the name to something less cheesy than ‘benefits’ or ‘welfare’. Or they should make more changes and let the poor have (not ‘claim’, that is like ‘beg’!) proper Benefits (or what ever else they call it) until we are earning enough to not need them, while not being worse off if we lose our benefits. So part time workers should keep their benefits. Disability has to be the word of the PERSON, not Atos/Capita etc., and disability benefits should be paid at proper levels if you have work or not. For workers they need the adaptations to help them stay in work; without them, more people will lose their jobs. And for them and non-workers, all need the adaptations and support to live day-to-day. It should not be an either/or. For example; don’t fund a worker to get to and move around in their workplace, but then say because you gave this you won’t be providing any help or adaptations to get round their home! And don’t fund things to help a disabled person not in work, at home, but then say they don’t have the right to go outside or go shopping or have a leisure and social life, travel, relationship…or volunteer in something!

    Treatment (a lot the government propose to order us to have, is not treatment at all!) is a) not compulsory, and b) not to be ordered by non-doctors and non-experts anyway. They want to make it compulsory.
    In Florida they conduct rude and intrusive (you must pee in front of somebody) drug tests now for everyone on or applying for welfare. That shows up legitimate medication as well as the drugs they say they are looking for. It also shows up pregnancy (in USA you can be court-ordered to be banned for life from getting pregnant; so would go straight to jail and possibly be given a forced abortion plus even sterilisation, if you had the baby it’d be taken away), infections, diseases, HIV, and genetic conditions (which cancel out your insurance or your chance of getting insurance). It shows the whole government your medical information. Which is supposed to be private between you and your doctor. (Women resisting forced abortions, often get punished by being sent to jail and the baby is stolen off them at birth.) USA places time limits on benefits; this policy was suggested on ‘The Big Benefits Row’
    AND for disabled people.
    Time you are allowed to be disabled/ill, being limited? We suddenly miraculously recover? If they say 3 or 6 months, or 12 months? Day 364, we suddenly leap out of bed having regrown our legs, mended our spine, or acquired the ability to see. All our mental health problems are over, and we are free to apply for and get a job on day 365 as our benefits stop, tumbling into a nice shiny new job on day 366 (which will have no problems and last forever.). We’ll never need to move, change family size, or get the same or a different health condition.

    Getting a job: Say we, disabled or not, get a job and:
    -The firm goes bankrupt, shuts, or relocates to across the UK or abroad.
    -The job sucks and does not pay the bills/rent/mortgage.
    -The job sucks and you’re constantly knackered and stressed out.
    -The job sucks. End of.
    -The job is okay but you have not enough responsibility and no way to
    -The job is okay but your boss/co-workers suck, you can’t get on.
    -The job is okay but your boss or someone else sexually harrasses you or molests you, or worse! (Can’t resign or you’ll lose your benefit)
    -You get sacked so they can replace you with somebody on workfare.
    -Your health gets worse or you acquire an illness or disability.
    -You are having a kid, or need to care for a relative/friend.
    -You are put on jury service (and probably sacked because you were not a protected worker anyway). Or ditto if you must go away to care for a dying person, or help out with a problem with a moved-away ex or your kid with them, or tidy up a dead parent’s house, etc. Like if your ex taking your kid moved to Manchester for example, and your kid now gets cancer and you must go and care for them.
    -They object to you (sex, sexuality, size, age, whatever) and sack you.
    -You find a new job but it isn’t due to start yet.

    Then it’s back onto benefits but: You lose benefits for the delay in setting it up, lose more for having had a job, and lose a week under the new rule where they take a week’s dole away automatically for ‘new claims’. But you can be refused the dole at all: if you quit the job, even after being raped at work or subjected to racist bullying; they don’t let you have JSA. And now also they stop it if you got sacked, even if sacked for being gay/black by a boss who is homophobic/racist, or you are sacked on false charges. Of course if employed you may now have savings, so they can try to pinch the lot or deny you benefits, regardless of what the money is needed for (private medical care not available on NHS? rare conditions NHS doesn’t treat?).

    The anti-benefits people on the show, have obviously never worried if they’d have a job, if they’d be paid, if they’d get sacked, or if they’d have to go on benefits. They have never gone a week without food. They have not sat in the dark because ‘The Leccy’ has run out or been disconnected. They’ve not worried someone will burst in at night and snatch away their kids, for being ‘bad parents’. They’ve never gone to an Atos ‘medical’ and been humiliated over their weight, disability, continence, size, mental health, sickness, energy levels, number of kids.
    They’ve not been hassled if they have a bad day and can’t get to the jobcentre to sign on, or if they have a better day and are seen in the street laughing or running. They aren’t called ‘not really disabled’ or lose points for a NOTIONAL and irrelevant wheelchair they’d not need or couldn’t get.

  25. My name is [my] name.

    She looks like she’s having a…
    The kind where you strain so much to get it out, you practically have a stroke.

  26. You can just imagine Katie Hopkins vision of britain – Police State.

  27. I see Thatcherite arsehole Guido Fawkes on there…everything is Labours fault according to him….stupid cnut took the day off and closed his website when Thatcher died ..he closed it ‘ out of respect ‘ trouble is he opened it up again ..
    Good to see Anita Bellows from DPAC on there..
    We have to fight because for us disabled it really is a matter of life and death .
    If the cuts don’t get us the hate mob will.

  28. Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog.

  29. something survived...

    In some areas you can have c1000 people applying per job, which is often actually a crap job. 1 person gets it and 999 don’t. Most of them will have had their applications put straight in the bin without reading, not even a huge corporation could hire people to read all of them.
    People kept making the point that whether there are jobs or not and whether we could get them or not, we are often TOO ILL TO WORK.
    What is their idea, to push us into it till we fail?

    • Katie of course doesn’t need a job. She’s a business woman – see her wikipedia entry:
      “Hopkins is often introduced as a business woman in television appearances, and refers to herself in her media articles as an employer in a small business. That business is ‘Katie Hopkins Limited’, a company classified as a “business & management consultancy”, based in Exeter, Devon, and incorporated on 21 June 2007.[40] Hopkins is the sole shareholder and only director, with her husband, Mark Cross, acting as company secretary.[41] The company has run at a net loss since June 2009. As of 30 June 2012 it had a net worth of -£11,927, and had no declared turnover at all during the previous 12 months.[42]”

      • The disgusting debate debacle should put some money in her bank account, how the hell she gets her face everywhere not to mention her point of view shows how immoral the media have become.

        Matthew Wright who allowed these FLAWED FEMALES to talk over decent comments shows what a prostitute presenter he is, he looked like it too in his recent celebrity jungle outfit – his girlfriends white bikini.

      • What? – somone actually married that mad cow! Jesus what is the world coming to.

  30. I don’t watch tv and haven’t for years. I don’t listen to the radio and haven’t for years. I have the sound turned off on my computer and have for years. Why? Because I hate hearing all the lies, I hate the news as they tell things how they (or the government) want to and not what is really going on. I don’t read newspapers either as they are as bad as the tv and radio for telling such sh!te and printing lie upon lie – and everyone gets away with it!!
    I get my news from blogs and when I heard about Curry my first thought was “She’s a has-been and why the hell is anyone dragging her up again?” – the woman was a menace when she was an MP and was sacked due to her lies and more lies, about EGGS! I mean, come on, how pathetic.
    As for Katy Hopkins, I believe she too is a failed something or other and is of the same type as Curry. Put the two of them together and you get a hell of a headache as the two of them are nothing but spiteful, ugly, self-opinionated witches.
    These programs that use these two, either separately or together, are really scraping the bottom of the barrel and are actually making it better for those who they have the arguments with 🙂 People see the likes of them and hear them screeching like banshees and immediately dislike them. Curry and Hopkins are making huge fools of themselves and you should just laugh at them and what they screech because whatever argument they start with is lost the minute they open their mouths.

  31. Reblogged this on Jay's Journal.

  32. off topic
    inquiry Launched Into Atos ‘Fit For Work’ Tests
    The Work and Pensions Committee has announced that it will be carrying out an inquiry into the highly controversial sickness benefit tests, known as the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), carried out by private contractor Atos Healthcare on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
    The committee is particularly interested in hearing evidence and peoples views into:

    Delivery of the WCA by Atos, including steps taken to improve the claimant experience.
    The effectiveness of the WCA in indicating whether claimants are fit for work, especially for those claimants who have mental, progressive or fluctuating illnesses, including comparison with possible alternative models.
    The process and criteria for procuring new providers of the WCA.
    The ESA entitlement decision-making process.
    The reconsideration and appeals process.
    The impact of time-limiting contributory ESA.
    Outcomes for people determined fit for work or assigned to the WRAG or the Support Group.
    The interaction between ESA and Universal Credit implementation.
    The deadline for submitting evidence is Friday 23 March

    • overburdenddonkey

      a pr exercise, the WCA should be scrapped and the dwp knows it…one might find it interesting to read as many upper tribunal judgements as possible…a whole new and different picture of the WCA emerges…


      • I can remember Danny Alexander appearing in you-tube videos exposing the vile treatment of ATOS victims, now in power he couldn’t give 2 fucks.

        Typical politician, wears two hats………



      DISABILITY DENIAL is what all this contrived fiasco is about, a method of unleashing private health insurance on our shores using the connivance of a select group of influential people to infiltrate the powers that be…………

      The FACULTY OF OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE has been a springboard for those select people, acting in the interests of the much discredited american, UNUM INSURANCE GROUP and ATOS, to launch this attack on U.K. markets………..

      Just do a bit of googling and the links with these discredited companies become sinisterley apparent.

      BILL GUNNYEON, now the CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE DWP,is the kingpin behind this scandal that is yet to rock politics. Indeed, nearly every link to any event that he has chaired or spoken at, bears fruit as to the existence of corporate management sponsorship from these firms.

      Each and every venue has the same participants, the same participants who have succesfully steered the government down a one way street.
      Perhaps i am being a bit modest here, because the government are also part of the bigger picture, as are the AUSTERITY, WELFARE REFORMS, that have been unleashed on the weakest and poorest within our shores…………….
      All part of a bigger corporate plan that was enabled by a handful of carefully chosen people.

      Dame Carol Black, Paul Lichfield and Bill Gunnyeon have all been prime movers in the movement aimed at introducing private health insurance by the back door.

      The decommissioning of the NHS is the biggest part of the plan. PRIVATISATION BY DECEPTION.

      To bolster what i am saying, just red the following lines that show the UNUM link;
      TAEN CONFERENCE, Sponsored by UNUM, London 29th oct 2008.

      Among the morning speakers were; Dr Bill GUNNYEON (DWP)……

      Professor Michael ODONNELL, UNUM Chief Medical Officer…


      Losing the benefit crutch
      Source:Occupational Health Date:01-09-2005 Type:commentary and analysis

      But, as Dr Bill Gunnyeon, former president of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine, pointed out in May, occupational medicine will need to broaden its horizons to address not only the health needs of people at work, but those of the working age population as a whole. Anything that helps people who have been ill to get back into work would be broadly welcomed by OH professionals, argues Dr Barbara Kneale, occupational health and safety advisor at car manufacturer Peugeot Citron in Coventry.


      Simon Burns (Minister of State (Health), Health; Chelmsford, Conservative)

      We are not aware of any meetings between officials and UNUM. However, Dame Carol Black, expert adviser on health and work to the Department, met them on three occasions in January 2012 to discuss the positive relationship between work and health.


      Commenting, Professor Michael O’Donnell, Chief Medical Officer at Unum said:

      “Dame Carol Black’s ‘fit note’ will be a major step forward in addressing attitudes towards sickness and the sooner we can introduce it, the better. Changing the mindset and therefore attitudes is the critical first step in bringing about a real and effective change in approach by all parties.


      Source:Occupational Health Date:01-07-2005 Type:news

      Dr Bill Gunnyeon stood down in May after three years as head of the faculty to became chief medical adviser at the Department for Work and Pensions, where he will play a key role in plans to get millions of people off incapacity benefit and back into work. The role and importance of work in the lives of people and the interaction between health and work now has a profile and a focus that it has never had before, and our specialty encompasses a unique set of skills and experience that can make a significant contribution to this agenda,” Gunnyeon added.


      Dame Carol Black

      Chief medical adviser warns that funding requests will be challenged

      A tax break for companies that fund interventions to get absent employees back to work will be considered by the Government, but much work needs to be done to analyse its implications.

      This was the message from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to insurers, healthcare professionals and employer representatives at the Association of British Insurers this morning.

      “Any conference I have been to, it [removing tax disincentives to fund healthcare] is one of the things that employers have consistently raised and I understand that,” said Dr Bill Gunnyeon, chief medical adviser at the DWP. “But I’m not making any promises.”


      Health and Wellbeing at Work Conference
      5-6 march 2013
      Venue; NEC Birmingham

      Speakers include;

      Dame Carol Black

      Bill Gunnyeon CBE

      Professor Sir Mansel Aylward



      Health and Wellbeing at Work Conference
      5-6 march 2013
      Venue; NEC Birmingham

      Speakers include;

      Dame Carol Black

      Bill Gunnyeon CBE

      Professor Sir Mansel Aylward



      Association of British Insurers in partnership with UNUM and AXA PPP Healthcare.


      Dialogue panel includes;

      Dame Carol Black
      James McGarry CEO UNUM
      Bill Gunnyeon CBE (DWP)


      London 2012.
      The 6th International Forum on Disability Management was chaired by two of the worlds leaders on the “good work is good for you” movement,Professors Dame Carol Black and Sir Mansel Aylward.The UK movement is going gang busters. Dr Bill Gunnyeon, Chief Medical Adviser and Director for Health and Wellbeing at the DWP,described how their surveys of GPs attitudes has shown a remarkable turnaround, with most GPs now agreeing work is beneficial for health, and around two thirds agreeing that GPs have a role in getting people back to work.


      Bill Gunnyeon said:

      “I am delighted to be joining the Department and very much looking forward to the challenges and opportunities which lie ahead. I will be seeking to build on the outstanding work of Professor Aylward, who has made such a valuable contribution to the Department’s achievements and whom I feel privileged to be succeeding.”



      Sadly, guess who is the independent scrutineer for ATOS,

      The one and only PAUL LITCHFIELD…..


      Sue Godby, UnumUK
      Dr Angela Gra­ham, Atos Origin
      Dr Paul Litch­field, Fac­ulty of Occu­pa­tional Medi­cine (Bill Gunnyeon, now the chief Med­ical Advisor to DWP was the pres­id­ent of the FOM)

      In Phys­ical Tech­nical Work­ing Group included:

      Dr Angela Gra­ham, Atos Ori­gin Med­ical Services
      Dr Peter Dewis, Dis­ab­il­ity Ana­lyst and Cus­tomer Care Dir­ector, UnumUK
      Dr David Hende­r­son Slater, yet again

      The former Chief Med­ical Advisor to the UK gov­ern­ment, Pro­fessor Mansel Ayl­ward, was instru­mental in advising the UK gov­ern­ment to set up med­ical assess­ment centres based on the model in Amer­ica, and he is still fun­ded by the same Amer­ican com­pany used in his example, with his research centre in Wales. The company’s name: UnumProvid­ent (UK). Indeed, his research centre for Psychoso­cial and Dis­ab­il­ity Research is based at Cardiff Uni­ver­sity (Pro­fessor Ayl­ward is the Dir­ector) is named the“UnumProvident Centre.” Pro­fessor Ayl­ward was also instru­mental in how the recent Wel­fare Reform Act was to be imple­men­ted by the DWP. 8

      …………………………………………………………………………..Silver Jubilee Business Dinner 4TH DEC 2003

      Aboard Royal Yacht BRITTANNIA, Edinburgh



      The Department for Work and Pensions announces today the appointment of Dr Bill Gunnyeon as Chief Medical Adviser, Medical Director and Chief Scientist to the Department for Work and Pensions.

      Currently Medical Director of Capita Health Solutions and President of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine, Dr Gunnyeon will take up post on 1st June 2005.

      He succeeds Professor Mansel Aylward CB who is retiring from the Department at the end of April to take up post as Chair in Psychosocial and Disability Research at Cardiff University and Director of the new UnumProvident Centre at the University. He will also chair the newly established Wales Centre for Health which will lead on improvements in the nation’s health.



      Finally, will the DWP ANSWER THE FOI REQUEST TO THE Reply



  34. Let Hatey Katie have her fifteen minutes, even the dimmest members of the public will soon tire of her hysterical screeching and go back to having their bigotry served up by Jeremy Kyle. You can’t take seriously a failed businesswoman whose highest ambition was to be Alan Sugar’s performing monkey.

  35. “I have never had any doubt that the U.S. economy as we know it was headed for total and catastrophic collapse, the only question was when, exactly, the final trigger event would occur. ”

  36. never has the expression “if she had abrian shed be dangerous” been so apt,my worry with her rantings is that shes a “celeb” whatever that is these days she cant sing act paint play an instrument has no bussiness sense but she has thousands of “followers” on twitter who hang on her every word thats quite worrying

  37. “People who dismiss the the unemployed as “parasites” fail to understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it with appearing a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist society.”

    — Jason Read

    • Hello 🙂 *waves*

      • Nah, you don’t count, Bren. *Everyone* knows you lot are parasites. 🙂

        Hmm… seems to me that the country keeps the Windsors in much the same manner as Brenda keeps her corgis, and for much the same purpose.

  38. *one that can make its host work for it without appearing a burden

  39. Question is..why does someone feel the need to post so much hatred towards another person ? The technology creates anoninimity would those same people actually go to that place and harm or even kill those people ? If not then why post that crap ?

    As i stated before the irony of hate tweets suggesting death when clsimants are committing suicide …what if the hate tweeter was told the person killed them self
    Would they be cobgratulated or claim credit for suggesting death ?

  40. Pingback: Winning The Argument On Welfare Means Never Giv...

  41. I find it ironic that the people on Twitter who complain bitterly about benefit claimants and two-dimensional characters on reality TV programmes like Benefit Street, spend a lot of their time actually wishing harm or threatening harm to other citizens and behave in a fashion much worse than any of the people they hate, despise, and criticise.

    Kind of sad really isn’t it?

  42. Signed on today and no mention this time of me giving them access to Jobshite site. Advisor said however that late March or April I will be required to do 6 months Community work or whatever other option there is. She said they don’t know the full details yet. This is making me sick with worry my social anxiety is getting worse through all of this and going on the sick would only give me three months is that right as in appeals after that no benefit is paid is that correct.

    • If I were you I’d opt for daily signing at the local Jobcentre. They will have to pay your fare from home and back and, if enough people follow suit, will swamp the Jobcentres with unnecessary work and piss off the staff. Plus, after the visit it’s over whereas with workfare you’ll have to spend the whole day as an unpaid slave rather than an hour signing on.

      • She said I wouldn’t get that option as my job search is good. I will be stepping in dog shit every day before I enter any community workfare and be dressed like a tramp.

        • That’s interesting… so if you are an industrious jobseeker who diligently fills in their ‘joblog’ you will be hut with the Community Picking Up Dogshit Option. If the cunts do hit you with it the only real option of escape is not sign any Data Protection Act waivers. And be very, very careful of what you are asked to sign be it at the jobcentre/providers. The jobcentre are crafty, they are slipping DPA waivers under cover of ‘recruitment campaigns’ i.e at signing on the jobcentre will say we are running a recruitment campaign for the London Olympics 2050 and give you a slip of paper to tick with whatever options you ‘prefer’ i.e. cleaner, cook, astronaut, whatever. But IF you read it, it will state: “I authorise the DWP/Jobcentre Plus and our partners to share my personal information with employers, placement providers and third parties etc” In other words they have just side-stepped the requirement for wp/mwa/cap providers to obtain the jobseekers consent before pimping them out as slave labour. Always, always, be on your guard, these forms are just slipped under your nose with a smile as you are busy signing your declaration anyway… so just something else to sign. And 99.99 of jobseekers will no doubt unwittingly put themselves in the slave driver’s chains. Of course you can always withdraw consent but it is a LOT easier not to give it in the first plave. The DPA is one of the few protections jobseekers currently have against exploitation! And the DWP/JC/Providers/IDS HATE it with a vengeance! Be careful, very very careful.

          • IDS is of his trolley

            too right, ids publicity stated in the commons that “I will rip the [expletive] data protection act to shreds with my own bare hands”… just shows the kind of deluded madman we are up against.

            • The DWP/Jobcentre are CRIMINALS!!

              The DWP/JC are fucking CRIMINALS – they are just ignoring the DPA. If you won’t sign at a provider the jobcentre just go direct. How the fuck do these cunts get away with it! If Joe/Josephine Bloggs were acting like the DWP/Jobcentre they would have been behind bars!

          • Thanks for that. I will not be signing anything and I refused to sign the forms at the work programme induction. They will still find me a placement anyway so going on the sick may be an option so as not to be one of the first to go on this as maybe it will all come crashing down after a few months of anarchy and well placed protests.

            • You’re welcome 🙂

            • … and good on your for not signing the forms at the wp inductions. It is the first time that is hardest… after that it just becomes a habit lol 🙂

            • Cephalus, you have said that your social anxiety is getting worse due to what the JC+ are already doing to you. I’d suggest that you apply for ESA. Being bullied never cured anyone of social anxiety it will only get worse.

        • Here’s a quote from about the Help-to-Work scheme.

          “The new Help-to-Work scheme

          The government’s new Help-to-Work scheme will kick in from April 2014, replacing Mandatory Work Activity. You will be moved onto the scheme after two years on the Work Programme.

          Help-to-Work aims to provide full time, unpaid placements for the long term unemployed in which you must work for your benefits or risk being “sanctioned” and losing them.

          Unlike MWA which was capped at 6 months, Help-to-Work is indefinite – lasting until you find employment. However you do have some say in your placements, with 3 options available:

          Unpaid community work placements, such as gardening in public spaces or cooking meals for the elderly

          Daily appointments at your nearest JobCentre

          Compulsory training, e.g. to improve your literacy, numeracy, computer skills

          If you don’t choose one of the options yourself, your JobCentre Plus adviser can choose for you.

          So to me it looks as if YOU CAN pick an option yourself.

          Unless they’ve changed the rules again!

          • Well here’s hoping I can at least choose. So it is indefinite and after 6 months you go straight into another six months most likely.

            I have the dream of independence keeping me going. These nazis are getting more evil by the minute.

            • It couldn’t be possible to keep someone on workfare indefinitely, surely? I can’t believe that even the current coalition, as wretched as they are, could get away with doing something like that. And where the heck are they going to be able to find hundreds of thousands of workfare placements from? Can’t realistically happen can it?

              • Lots of people will be losing jobs for silly things shortly as desperate bosses yearn for free labour. I feel sorry for the person that takes me on I really do.

              • Unfortunately it is possible to keep a claimant on the Work Programme for ever. People in receipt of ESA (contribution based or income related) in the Work Related Activity Group who have a prognosis of 12 months or less can be mandated to the work programme from day 1 of their claim. For these ESA WRAG claimants, there is NO END DATE.

                If you end your claim for ESA, then reclaim again within (I think it’s either 6 months or a year) you will be sent straight to the work programme as you are, in theory, still on it.

                If you are in the WRAG and sent to the WP, you cannot be mandated to apply for work or even look for work. This includes sending spec’ letters, dropping CVs off at employers and getting signatures. The WP rule book says that all WP providers must take your health condition into account when they are instructing you to do anything. They are also supposed to make reasonable adjustments so you can achieve what they set out for you to do.

                Of course in reality, no adjustments happen and they treat ESA claimants on the WP with the same regimen of abuse and ineptitude that they treat claimants on JSA, despite there being separate rules for claimants of those benefits.

  43. “Here is a preview of tomorrows front page of the Irish Independent”

    “Danske Bank locks 10,000 customers out of their accounts”

  44. Katie Hopkins looks like a psychopath in that picture. I agree it’s essential not to take her seriously- the ‘points’ she makes are based on extreme prejudice and stereotyping. She also clearly has serious anger management issues.



    Ppl on benefits are not struggling someone posts on thread…

  46. Landless Peasant

    I’m still not a whole lot wiser as to who the fuck this Hopkins bitch is. But fuck off Hopkins, whoever you are.

  47. Hopkins is an ugly Tory cow that’s who she is which begs the question have you ever saw an attractive Tory? I don’t believe I have.

  48. We really need to move beyond these tired jobs v wages v benefits arguments, the need for ‘sympathy’. I wonder if part of the reaction on both sides of the ‘Benefits Street’ debate was not whipped up by some of the residents’ rejection of the notion that we all need a job to be a fully-fledged human being, and (Black D’s?) statement ‘there’s more to life than money.’

    Let’s reject the whole notion of a work ‘ethic’, and question what’s actually worth doing. Here’s an interesting vid ( based on Bill Black’s arguments ( against what we now call ‘work’.

    Otherwise we’ll always be pleading for crumbs from the sidelines, and/or angry we’re not getting enough.

    • I am surprised we are not told we should be dreaming of work or dreaming of finding work by one of those psychobabble units

      ” just inagine being wealthy and you will be ”
      Yeah and Del Boy and Rodney really exist..

  49. I saw online that anyone who has been unemployed for three years and has completed the work programme will from april be doing some kind of community work. I’m in that boat and not looking forward to it. I also saw that it said that if you complete the post work programme support and have been unemployed for three years then that support will continue until april when they can put us on this community work.
    I have just completed seven months on the so called post work programme support and although they have now given me a new signing book and I am to sign with the masses, the signing box on my card has the letters WPR and that sounds like work programme returner so maybe they are keeping tabs on me by signing at a specific desk until my community work for nothing six months starts in april.

  50. “… an increasingly familiar narrative of hard working immigrants versus lazy Brits. This is a handy comparison for the right, allowing them to not just to use it as an argument to clamp down on benefits, but also to introduce ever more draconian immigration laws.”

    That doesn’t follow does? I mean your logic is slightly wrong – surely if a government was wanting to impose ‘draconian’ immigration laws, as you call them, it would promote the idea that immigrants are lazy.

    And I really must say this. I believe the only people to blame for the success of UKIP are the left and the liberals. I say that because every one of my political beliefs would be classed as left-wing – very left wing, in fact, except I believe it absurd not to understand that people (of whatever colour or background) are being perfectly reasonable when they say they want immigration controlled more. Not stopped (and UKIP aren’t saying that, despite most of the left thinking that is their policy), but controlled, as many other countries do. That surely is not unreasonable. Because the left in recent decades have become utterly obsessed with issues of ethnicity and trying to spot racism in every corner they think any mention of immigration control to be racist. (NB immigration control, NOT banning/stopping it). As such, they have largely played into the hands of bigots, who are able to pick up on the unhappiness of many in the working class (again, of whatever colour, background, etc.) who are unhappy at the pace of change in their communities when it comes to immigration. Of course such issues are ridden over roughshod by the left, who focus on the economic benefits to the country (a moot point too of course). The poorest in society also do see their wage levels being suppressed by a number of factors, including by virtually unlimited immigration. That isn’t a prejudice, it’s an economic fact, which the right and the rich love, and which is tragically supported wholesale by the left and the liberal-minded in this country. It never used to be supported by the left, and those people were not labelled racist and were not racist.
    (Perhaps now I need to sit back and wait for the venom to be directed at my comments – but I would just say, please read them carefully, see what I AM say, rather what I am not. In other words, please suspend any accusations of racism until you weigh up what I have actually said.)

    • overburdenddonkey

      i reckon that you could have used many more words to explain what you mean..but we often infill missing info, and look beyond the words to get the jist of everything the author would have said, had we not switched off a 1000 words ago, if they had written a 1000 more words….eu citizens go where they please in the eu…those who come from outside the eu need permission to come here…imv we should all be able to freely go any where in our world that we wish to go, but we often cannot for many reasons…how can i explain what stops us from being able to embark on global travel, you already know those reason from your own personal standpoint…i bet many immigrants wished they’d stay at home, where is home?…stories of elderado, perhaps they hear…you want understanding as do we all…and to make sense of wtf is going on, as do we all…left wing right wing what is that? for me socialism is always putting human beings 1st including self, vitals of life we all need them…come up with a solution to all of the issues you wrestle with…for me a paid no strings welfare system, and all else will be pulled into line…i could say more, but i hope you will understand me…we should be united with all who struggle and suffer such as we…

      • overburdenddonkey

        ps dave missing word alert
        for me a decently paid no strings welfare system…… see also petition re eu citizens income, jv posted above…solutions is what we need…

        • OBD

          Dave is right in some respects regarding immigration, we do not have enough housing, schools, hospitals or jobs to look after our own without us having a mass immigration policy, the same can be said for the welfare state and NHS which the people of this country have have paid into and are being told there is no money in the pot for them. The left are telling us that migrants rarely claim benefits, but are still eligible for other public services, which are being cut to the indigenous population.

          When our workers migrate to other countries it is to earn more than they pay their own workforce and claim travelling expenses on top, they do not go there to undercut their wages, but that is not the whole story either because the migrant workers that tory and new labour talk about are the middle class migrants that walk into lifetime jobs in our NHS and other public sector jobs, who mores and so called manner have them voting against the working class in this country and is one of the reasons that labour has changed from red to blue.

          If we go to the poorer countries in the EU, will we have a fair exchange of wages, welfare, housing etc, how can they afford to pay workers from here when their economy is at rock bottom and is the reason we get migrant workers from some poor countries, yet if the propaganda about
          the need for austerity is to be believed, they have come to the wrong place.

          Where me and Dave part company is the fact that Farage is a Tory and would side with the tories if they were the deciding party in a hung parliament, but despite being called a bigot myself by people on here and other sites, I would not vote UKIP, but would like to see a good left wing party taking votes away from New Labour and help end this two party race.

          • overburdenddonkey

            g fawkes
            the uk sucks in wealth from all over the globe, a lot of it bounces out of our economy and goes elsewhere..our core economy ie local urban economy, is little different from other eu local urban economies, but many still have vibrant rural subsistence economies, ours has vanished leaving many towns and villages as dormitory settlements, to service commerce etc…
            wealthfare needs to be slashed, this should have been done instead of austerity, mansion tax as opposed to bedroom tax etc…imv austerity is now being widely seen as a political disaster, austerity will not be the vote winner they were BANKING on, for example they are driving the scots away from uk plc…the poor ie the likes of us, take little from the system, and give the rich all of their power (energy)…the pressure put on us, the nhs and other services has to mop up, the human wreckage of these savage welfare cuts…a stitch in time..prevention better than cure…education or free to learn… i call you some one who’s heart is in the right place…..there is plenty of wealth to go round… i don’t think that the tories would touch ukip with a barge pole, nor vice versa…

          • This woman Katie Hopkins reminded me of how I missed out on a TURKEY dinner this Christmas. I could not even afford a turkeys neck, because of these hostile, arrogant, corporate narcissists. They are stealing from the poor, and now sending them to slave trade. They are getting off on this power and dominance. They want us in submission position.

            • We had beanz on toast for Christmas dinner – seriously! Its all we could afford. Saying that, we quite like beanz on toast – thank fuck – we see enough of it lol 🙂

    • ” the multicultural ” experiment ” has failed
      Yeah and stupid shit like that is bollocks
      So there is a mad scientist who has been running a program to see if all races can co exist and its been trialling for ages and there is a hidden secret report with the word FAILED in red stamped on it.
      Its as loony as creationists claiming evolution is just a theory..

    • Hmm. “I’m well socialist, me, except for all the nationalism” – now why does that sound ominously familiar…?

  51. Another Fine Mess

    CH4 News have just done an investigation piece on the number of fake jobs on universal job shite.

    Watch again on CH4+1 8:25pm-ish onwards.

  52. @Johnny
    I’ve been a long time follower of your blog but are you going to let vile anti-Semitic comments go by unchallenged? Because I am disgusted with this vile bile from KittyCat especially and a few other jokey comments in support:

    This is the comment I refer to:

    “Their deeply unpleasant, selfish attitude towards anyone who isn’t one of them & their avarice is probably the reason for the persecution._An interesting historical footnote – european jews aren’t really jewish at all, in that they didn’t originate from Palestine. They’re descendants of a bloodthirsty tribe called the Kazars from the Caucasus mountains, whose leaders decided in the 11th or 12 th century to chose a religion for their followers, & for for some reason unknown settled on judaism.This goes a long way way to understanding why the Israelis are such a nasty,warmongering spiteful shower of excuses for human beings.”

    I’ve already commented further up to this end:

    I loathe Edwina Currie with a vengeance but your fuckin anti-semitism is offensive – your stereotyping Jews is as vile as Currie and Hopkins stereotyping benefit claimants.
    Oh and have a read of this thread while you’re at it:
    It’s entitles: Debunking the ‘Fake Jew’ AKA The ‘Khazarian Jew’ Myth.

    But this is about offensive as those remarks on Twitter about claimants on James Turner Street and the police are investigating that.


    Religious people do my head in
    But Religious Conservatives are just bloody
    Mad as fuck…

    ” sometimes jesus is just plain wrong “

  54. anymore anti-Semitic shit like that and people’s IPs are going to start getting banned.

  55. What’s happened to “Iai*n Dunc*an S*mith”, haven’t seen the Secret*ary of State of W*ork and Pen*sions commenting on here for a while – has some sort of D-Notice been issued (by the DWP)? They came for UKJCP but I didn’t care cos I think Twitter is shit, then they came for the Void…

  56. Labour Party announces plans to replace back to work scheme.

    MULTI-NATIONAL firms will be stripped of ‘back-to-work’ contracts and responsibility handed to local councils and businesses, under Labour plans.

    Ed Miliband’s party will – if it wins power – axe the private sector-led ‘Work Programme’, because it is failing to find jobs for the “hardest to help”.

    The move comes after fierce criticism of the £5bn Work Programme, which pays private-sector giants on a payment-by-results basis.

  57. Johnny Void take note – This most excellent idea is from a lady called Gaia on the IUA forum regarding Universal Jobmatch.

    If under JD, when presenting proof via printout of registration ALWAYS COVER up anything that identifies that account to you so as to make it NOT traceable. Again in full accordance with DPA (check out legal definition of PERSONAL DATA) you are legally and reasonably entitled to withhold it so again make sure to announce this along with “if you intend to sanction me as evidence to the decision maker I will reveal the said account BUT upon doing so will close it down IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS and open up a new one”, which again your fully entitled to do and theirs nothing they can do about it.

    • Obi, you can open as many UJM accounts as you like. Anyway, UJM keeps locking me out and I have to keep starting afresh anyway… 🙂

  58. “pure,unadulterated evil”

    Try as i may, to understand why anybody would seek to do harm to another, is beyond me………..

    What kind of person, working for the DWP, could remove a persons benefits, knowing that it might lead them to commit suicide?

    How could an individual perpetrate this evil on another human being, let alone an animal?
    ……………and yet we see it every day in the newspapers!

    The role of the welfare system is supposed to help those in greatest need, not exacerbate their misery to fever pitch.

    Disability denial and the sanctioning of the poorest has suddenly become the norm in the UK, is it the altered mindset of the people that allow this, or something much more sinister?

    Since when has it become socially acceptable to kick those who are in most need, the vulnerable, the weak and the needy?

    I was brought up to recognise that we are not all created equal, that some carry a burden, and that burden however small, must be addressed accordingly……………………….

    The DWP is now, not a welfare organisation, but a tool of the state that is used to inflict pain, not interested in helping, honed to demonise.

    The PCS Union is the equivalent of Hitler’s SS, a regime that instils fear rather than aid……………………

    “USING THE AGE LONG EXCUSE OF, WE WERE ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS”, they continue to decimate the lives of innocent people at the behest of their evil paymasters, the DWP.

    How long can this union continue to butcher the innocent without someone breaking rank and making the “EVIL” available to the public?



    EXPOSE THE GOVERNMENT FOR WHAT THEY ARE, or crawl into your protected job titles shivering like wobbling jellies, your knees knocking from the fear of sanctions that you dole out on a daily basis!





  59. Universal Jobmatch creating fake jobs. I have signed into the Universal Jobmatch this afternoon and was made to read a Standards of Behaviour declaration and tick the box that I had read it before I was allowed to continue onto the site.

    Link to channel 4 article here:

    • Lisa P:

      So this standards thing comes up before you are granted access? I will tell you right now this is illegal, it should go something like this:

      Would you like to sign the new standards stuff or continue to sign in, they have fucked up on this bigtime, any solicitors reading this?

      • I have been saying there are bogus jobs for some time now. It just didn’t seem right the amount of Jobs with agencies that never replied to applications I have made.Now there are no Jobs to apply for as they have all been taken down and I am mandated by Job seekers direction to log on to the site seven days a week or face a doubt on my claim. They have rushed this through to cover themselves so they are not liable for our information being sold and basically there is nothing we can do about it.

        • Lisa P:

          The JCP can’t tell you, even under a jobseekers direction to log on to UJ, the next time this happens, stand up and shout out for a floor manager to come over and explain what has just happened.

          The mal adviser that has told you to do this will be in the managers office being told they will be sacked the next time this happens.

          • Thanks for your advice OBI. However I don’t think that will wash with the JCP I’m in. It’s notoriously full of bastards that love nothing better than to issue a sanction. I have for a couple of months now been on a course with a training provider after being sent their by the JCP. Whilst there, I have got to know other claimants from my area and the stories I hear are unreal. We are being told signing up to UJ is now mandatory, some where even told they had to allow access or face a doubt on their claim. Others have mentioned observing their advisor checking their UJ account even though they have not ticked the box to allow access. I was given a new JS direction in August stating that I had to undergo 40 hours Job search activity per week. This involves signing into UJ SEVEN days a week, looking on other Job sites three times a week and providing printed screenshots of all this because I have refused access. Everyone I know just seems to feel this Government are a law on to themselves and will just change the rules to suit themselves any time they are caught to be breaking them.I have even had to help people look for Jobs on the UJ who cannot read,write or use a computer, because even though they have informed the JCP bullies of this they have still been mandated to use the site or face a sanction.

        • Lisa P: – Heres the rules and regs on this, I suggest you make a print out of the following and show this to a floor manager, then tell them the name of the cocky adviser who told this to you. Win Win!

          DWP Central Freedom of Information Team.


          Our Ref: VTR4916

          Universal Jobmatch Toolkit: 17 October 2013

          Chapter 03 – Using Universal Jobmatch (UJ)

          Issuing a Jobseeker’s Direction to mandate JSA claimants to create a
          profile and public CV in Universal Jobmatch

          56. You also cannot issue a Jobseeker’s Direction to mandate a claimant to give us access to their account – this is their decision not ours.

          Actively Seeking Employment.

          92. We cannot specify to a JSA claimant how they provide us with records of their jobsearch activity and Universal Jobmatch will not change this – it is not therefore possible to require JSA claimants to give DWP access to their Universal Jobmatch account.

          • The Jobcentre are LIARS!!

            Another thing the lying jobccentre say it that they can issue a direction to provide a “contact number”, note how they word it, its’ not like they are ordering you to go out and buy a mobile ‘phone or install a land-line out of your (sanctioned) JSA. The jobcentre seem to have some sort of fixation with jobseekers having a ‘contact number’.

  60. obd – now i (sort of) know who she is! I have heard that before, but was not sure in relation to who(m) & perhaps it was Alice Miller, Will try to get to a library though (before they are all closed) & find out more about her … – no, i can’t imagine being brave enough to go back in and can’t imagine being in the position of having members of my family/community inside the ghetto & knowing they could die or be moved ‘away’ at any time.

    A friend has just been found ffw though, and had money stopped.  If someone had asked me, even just a few years ago, if i could imagine this happening it would have been quite difficult and probably seemed not very likely. The same person is telling me that homeless is/has now been/being outlawed (posessions being summarily removed) – think it’s been on here before (?).

    Joking about libraries aside, it was on the news earlier today that there’s some sort of ‘consultation’ or similar exercise being undertaken by ssh you know who into the feasibility of libraries in general – the unspoken suggestilon being that they’re probably not really needed and why bother keeping them anyway when the ones in city centres, at least, are probably worth pots of money/could be turned into … who knows -they will think of something more ‘economically effective’.

    They’re already evolving very fast (of necessity) and are where unemployed people are starting to congregate – to use the computers etc. – so the best thing would clearly to make them obsolete/shut them down and make the staff redundant …

  61. check out the some of the new policies of the UJM website..

    4. Links from the Universal Jobmatch website to other sites

    4.1 Where our site contains links to other sites and resources provided by third parties, these links are provided for your information only. We have no control over the contents of those sites or resources, and accept no responsibility for them or for any loss or damage that may arise from your use of them.

    5. Disclaimer

    5.1 While we make every effort to keep the Universal Jobmatch website up to date, we don’t provide any guarantees, conditions or warranties as to the accuracy of the information on the site.

    5.2 We don’t accept liability for loss or damage incurred by users of the website, whether direct, indirect or consequential, whether caused by tort, breach of contract or otherwise. This includes loss of:
    – income or revenue
    – business
    – profits or contracts
    – anticipated savings
    – data
    – goodwill
    – tangible property
    or wasted management or office time in connection with our site or in connection with the use, inability to use, or results of the use of our site, any websites linked to it and any materials posted on it. This condition shall not prevent claims for loss of or damage to your tangible property or any other claims for direct financial loss that are not excluded by any of the categories set out above.

    5.3 This does not affect our liability for death or personal injury arising from our negligence, nor our liability for fraudulent misrepresentation or misrepresentation as to a fundamental matter, nor any other liability which cannot be excluded or limited under applicable law.


    shirking all responsibility of their own actions by the looks of it, rendering themselves impossible to be held accountable for anything that happens as a direct consequence of their regime

  62. @ overburdendonkey Reminds me of a comment on another forum: “‘The Void’ is a good site – the comments take you all over the place.” You can say that again: “‘The Void’ is a good site – the comments take you all over the place.” Whoops, just did lol 🙂

  63. It certainly is overburdend

    We must never forget the atrocities committed by that vile, damaged, ignorant, narcissistic, authoritarian, condemning, greedy, violent, malevolent, evil, stealth abusing, controlling, ugly pig of a man called Hitler. What he did to the Jews and the disabled people must never be forgotten. It must never be forgotten because it must never happen again. This very damaged man, took out his unconscious aggression onto the Jews, and the disabled due to terrible childhood abuse, according to Alice Miller, and I believe she is right. He took out his unconscious aggression on to a scapegoat, something that could not harm him, and he felt these people to be beneath him. Alice Miller was very adamant in to getting this important point across in order to save society.

    • overburdenddonkey

      lets not forget hitler was born innocent, his parents fcuked him up…and until this is fully acknowledged atrocities will carry on being repeated over and over again…as they are being, all over the planet, right now…but we have learn’t nothing, merely remembering it happened, does not stop it happening….condemning his personality is not the answer, curing people in this profound agony is…the signs are ignored, spun as something else, as we can see….controlling it, is not curing it…read everything miller wrote about hitler….he was turned into a monster…

      • overburdend
        yes the sad truth is these atrocities have been going on for centuries, and always will be going on for centuries more no doubt. What could anyone do to stop it? I could not see valdimur putin for example, sitting on a couch having psychoanalysis and being made better, could you.
        People all need to become aware and vigilant of when its going on, the vile scapegoating of a target group etc, They need to resist the brainwashing and help one another, rather than attack us. Perhaps the society that is brainwashed by the right wing media could be better informed, It certainly would be impossible to cure a sick world. All we can do now is protect ourselves,our family,our people in the same boat as we are in now (the poor, unemployed, sick, or disabled) and others who want to hear the truth.

        • overburdenddonkey

          we the people could lobby for change….the natural child work of dr miller, johnson, rowe, o james, moncrieff, whitaker, et al demonstrates clear proof of what can be done….

  64. i think what the left could learn from the right is that they should be united no matter how strongly they support their view. For example all right wingers agree on tax cuts and more deregulation whereas the left gets caught up in fighting with each other to at least build a platform to mount a challenege to the constant neoliberalism of politicians and the media

  65. The ONLY way things will change is with a violent revolution I am afraid. This peaceful protest stuff is bollocks. It is already past the time this should be happening.

  66. The universal basic income is surely inevitable later in this century anyway because we have a system that divides people and leaves them behind if they don’t measure up to conditionality. The default path is to go to school, college and then try to find some sort of job, then society deprives you of basic rights if this doesn’t happen by forcing you to claim JSA and then uses regulations against you if you cannot through no fault of your own find a job etc. You wouldn’t plan to run a society like that if you were actually starting one from scratch so why do we tolerate it now? I don’t, I believe there should be a universal basic income instead and to cut the complications it will be necessary to simply give it to everyone, since means testing itself costs a lot of money.

    This “paying in” argument is ridiculous because many people will never be able to “pay in” since that means getting into the elite that is able to get a job with its own income and keep it for years etc, so we need an unconditional system that gives you an income without asking first how much you have paid in. Think of the capitalist game of Monopoly, what happens there, you are GIVEN £1500 when you start the game, and then a regular INCOME of £200. It is deemed that you cannot play the game unless you start on an equal footing with the other players, you know what that is also true of society in general.

  67. There will have to be a universal basic income at some point anyway I do feel just to sustain our society, it cannot go on much further like this and perhaps in a few decades they will bring it in just to stop unrest. The whole premise it is all built on where you have to secure some sort of job under some sort of authority and control merely to be allowed to partake in society and have a place to live/possessions/food/energy etc is to me something “evil” enough to want to overthrow. An intelligent civilisation would not build a society like it certainly if we were starting things from scratch you wouldn’t plan it like this. That it is down to you to “find” a job and then sustain in it, when the situation could go against you and you end up fired/made redundant so everything you had “built” eg buying a house comes crumbling down anyway. We need to see an end to this and the universal basic income is the best way to do it. Ironically it would actually make it easier to go into employment as you currently feel you cannot put your benefit income at risk to go and do a job that might not last etc.
    The “work” that is necessary to sustain our society I am confident won’t need to be forced out of people particularly if we all had to become responsible for our own communities.

    The idea up the page that a universal basic income is a bad idea because it would disadvantage people who have “paid in” is ridiculous. If you can’t join the elite of society and get one of those hallowed jobs then you can never “pay in”. I am one of those people I may always be one of these people, so attempts to link a welfare system to suit the people who have “paid in” the most is disingenious. The point is we ALL have basic needs so we ALL need a system that makes sure we have those taken care of, a system that discriminates is one that will actually divide society much like capitalism does now into haves and have nots. I’d like to see the end of this sort of thing by the end of the century.

    A universal basic income that pays everyone equally is the simplest and easiest to administer, the means testing idea costs money and would help to make a universal basic income more unaffordable. A universal basic income can be afforded because of one basic idea, that it will seek to redistribute all the money in society more fairly, the only losers perhaps as Moggy says would be the ultra-rich, and why should they matter, they really are heavily outnumbered and will still enjoy a much greater than average quality of life.

    • Great post, Michael Farrie!
      Thank goodness for common sense and a wider view on the need for a basic income for all. We need more people who see the bigger picture.

  68. Pingback: Hatred | Gabriel's Angry Revolutionary Blog

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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