DWP And Homelessness Charities Link Up To Bully Homeless Benefit Claimants

HomelessThe homelessness industry is today welcoming an upcoming change in the law which could see homeless people forced to live in unsuitable or unsafe accommodation or face losing eligibility for benefits.

Homeless Link and St Mungo’s Broadway have published a gushing press release cheering amendments to the rules for Jobseeker’s Allowance set to come into force next month.  The changes mean that newly homeless people may only be considered meeting the criteria for benefits if they take “such steps as are reasonable for him (sic) to take to find living accommodation.”

Homeless people will have an easement of jobseeking requirements if they follow these conditions, but this will usually only last four weeks, despite the average length of hostel stays being significantly longer than that.  The minimum length of stay in one of St Mungo’s Central London hostels is eight weeks, with most residents staying an average of six to nine months.  The so-called easement period will be granted only at the discretion of Jobcentre busy-bodies and will not apply to people who have been homeless for a long time.

This trivial concession has been won by the homelessness industry in exchange for a yet further extensions of Jobcentre powers over the lives of some of the most marginalised claimants.  Overpaid charity bosses have been working for a long time with various government bodies and local authorities to establish the homelessness industry as a sort of soft police force aiming to clear the streets of those destitute.  Instead of analysing why mass homelessness exists, which is first and foremost an economic problem, it has been assumed that there must be something wrong with homeless people, something that can be cured.  This is no different to the current thinking at the DWP which blames unemployed people for unemployment and it is vile.

The main way to cure people of homelessness, charity bosses believe, is to move everyone off the streets into one of their hostels. Of course they will still be technically homeless but at least the charity gets a huge Housing Benefit cheque every week. These hostels have slightly improved over recent years but they can still be dangerous and hostile places.  The rules and regulations are endless, bullying can be rife, they are often riddled with heavy drug use and evictions can happen at the drop of a hat and for the most trivial reasons.  Yet under the new regulations a newly homeless claimant who turns down a hostel place will now not be considered for the easement period.  If they are then judged unable to meet benefit conditions, which could include workfare, they will face sanctions or possibly even be disallowed benefits completely.  Homelessness charity bosses are either extremely fucking naive or have quite another agenda if they honestly believe this will be better for homeless people, who do not appear to have been consulted about the changes.  They never are.

Follow me on twitter @johnnyvoid

109 responses to “DWP And Homelessness Charities Link Up To Bully Homeless Benefit Claimants

  1. OMG. That actually makes me want to cry. Seriously. It’s coersion. For those who can’t cope with being told what to do and where to live there’s nothing? In other words the less able you are to fit in, the more likely you are to drop through every safety net. How sickening is that?

  2. I sadly suspect the answer is “another agenda”

  3. Landless Peasant

    We’ll be tripping over dead bodies in the street, and crime will go through the roof. People have to eat, and eat they will. Watch out Rich parasitic scum, because YOU are on the menu!

  4. Pingback: DWP And Homelessness Charities Link Up To Bully...

  5. Homeless people will be forced to accept any accommdation to keep their benefits, no matter how badly maintained & unsuitable it may be. I was in that position in the 70`s, & was forced to live in an overcrowded house with no bathroom & a leaking roof, & a toilet that opened up straight off the kitchen. It was disgusting, but the only alternative was sleeping rough. This country has never done anything concrete to help the homeless, which is why there are so many people on the streets.

  6. This has all the whiff of ‘work house’ V2.0 about it.

  7. Obviously if the hostels were suitable places people would be queuing up to get into them. If desperate people are avoiding them they must have good reason. Coercing them is worrying, because the absence of choice feels like forced institutionalisation – force people into unsuitable accommodation then forget about them – problem solved. Also one would worry that the next step might be if you are homeless ie visibly on the street someone will round you up and put you there. Agree with Groc – return of the workhouse.

    • Sadly its not true that all homeless people “would be queuing up” to get into hostels.
      Many homeless individuals have mental health and/or alcohol issues.
      When I worked in my local Mind centre we helped a guy into rehab and set him up in a nice flat when he was sober. Plenty of help from third sector as well as mental health team.
      Three weeks all going well then he was back sleeping rough and drinking.

      I have even been told by some that they just cant face living in a house or whatever. They dont want to engage with society. Living on the streets has become normality.
      Yes its very sad.

      I do believe though that every homeless person should be encouraged to have some kind of help. Be it from a mental health team, drug/alcohol advice, GP appointments and third sector support.
      But yes, more carrot and less stick. Afterall it should be the individuals right to decide there life for themselves and to cut off much needed benefits will Im afraid cause many problems and suffering.

      We should all by now be fully aware of just how nasty the tories are!

      • I was working for the Social Services when Thatcher brought in “care in the community” the excuse for shutting down the many establishments which sheltered mentally infirm. Some did not have families to take them. Other families could not cope with them. Thatcher then looked at providing hostels for those dumped out of these institutions. When she found out it would cost £1,000pw per person she abandoned that idea . Result, a person homeless for reasons other than mental infirmity now has the choice of sleeping rough or being in a hostel with people who would have formerly been residents of mental homes – but the hostels haven’t been given the resources to deal with psychiatric problems. And many with mental infirmities are very gentle, vulnerable people – they can’t deal with bedlam either .

        • Care in the community was an idea from about the mid 70s and was originally a genuine attempt to humanise the treatment of those with mental illness and those with what is now termed learning disabilities. Far from being a cheap option, it was recognised in those pre-Thatcher days as a change in policy that would cost much more if it was to be correctly implemented. Of course, once Care in the Community was hijacked by the Tories under Thatcher, who wanted to shut down the expensive, (as well as inhumane in many respects in that those with mental health issues were hidden away in what were basically open prisons) asylum network. Of course, as you point out, the real cost of Care in the Community was a lot more than in institutions where the ‘economy of scale’ principle provided savings, and so the scheme was implemented under the original guise of introducing a more humane way of treating those unfortunate enough to need the support provided, but the reality is that it became a cost cutting exercise that was widely criticised at the time by the profession, and had been a well known potential problem long before it became a reality – I remember my sister and some of her colleagues voicing misgivings that politicians would see it as an opportunity to do things ‘on the cheap’, and that in reality Care in the Community wasn’t intended to be a cheap option (it was in fact widely realised by the profession that it would cost more, but the aims were humanitarian, and as such meant that the extra cost was more than justified).

          As we know, we are sold the lie that we mustn’t be allowed to be a cost burden on the rich, when in reality the rich are a cost burden on us.

          • The 60s and 70s advanced humanitarian ideals and policies as against the rather oppressive status quo at the time. Not all the facilities for the mentally infirm were bad. The same as NHS today, when you go to hospital. You may get a world class service or a service worse than the 3rd world. But our politicians are too radical. They only had to improve the institutions which were under par while helping people reintegrate back into the community where that was possible. But they took the drastic action of wholesale closure, which without the back up services, inevitably more expensive, and left swathes of people and families without any support. Just dumping people in the community as a cost cutting exercise. But there is no way we can hold politicians to account for the damage they inflict.

      • overburdenddonkey

        behaviourism cures nothing, it simply cannot work because to cure addictions one has to get to the root cause of the causal anxieties and not float above it/them… bumping into the anxieties and seeing the symptom anxieties as the problem cures nothing….ignoring or denying the underlying frozen terrors that cause the anxieties that lead to self destructive behaviours, cures nothing…the only way forward is to discover the root causes of anxieties….smiley encouraging “you can do it, kindness” is patronizing crap, for one very important reason the “other” teacher/guru, work/life coach is always in charge, they always know what is best “for their own good” see work of dr alice miller….the idea is that the person in need finds their own power, and to RECOVER their self esteem…the word recovery is used for this very reason …..one has to encourage the victim to express their deep rooted anguish, pain, pent up feelings, and trapped anger and rage…dr bob johnson states that he was only attacked a few times for going too fast and accidentally stepping on the others tender/raw painful feelings….
        …withdrawal is by cause of the persons need to protect themselves, from the often very poor and dreadful interventions, by people who have no idea what they are doing…..which includes the majority of mainstream interventions…
        seeing others as having a “failure to engage” is disingenuous @ best, because the person in need knows that they are not getting what they need…and is also blaming the victim, for the failures of the “therapists”…our culture is highly toxic and addictive behaviours are one way of escaping form this..their is only one person that i know of who offers a cure and that is dr bob johnson…one affect of the cure is a total rejection of our cultures toxic practices towards mental health problems…once the affected person can see the root cause of their anxieties, they become free and need no advice from others, it takes time safe space SANCTUARY, from the world, to put one’s Personal Intimate Space and Security, emotional armour BACK on, aka PISS which is so often taken, to defend against the world, yes the emphasis is on defending, when the need arises…people who withdraw are doing the natural thing! a natural reaction is to run from danger, that is, until natural armour is fully recovered and/or others stand around one to offer their protective shielding, when for many reasons armour can never be fully intact, the true measure of any culture is how they serve and protect the vulnerable…no carrot nor stick required, only truth, trust, consent, love, compassion, and empathy…

        • almost brings a tear to my eye to find out that someone understands my own issues to such a degree, i’ve always been called lazy in life and i’ve never been able to keep intouch with groups of friends because i feel a burden, i just don’t fit in and the feeling of alienation grew and grew till i just retreated..

          i don’t know why i’m like this, i think there’s some switch in my brain just not turned on, that’s as simple as i can put it..

          i can learn but not through typical means, it needs to be hammered in through repetition, written down and eventually memorized, this makes interviews and the thought of going into a job i have no clue about quite scary and for that reason i take a very long time to get anything done, i feel i have no direction in life and i certainly have no drive to succeed as to succeed i’d have to put myself in these scary situations i know i couldn’t deal with

          i actually spent some time in a hostel after a big argument with my mother and she kicked me out, it wasn’t hell in there but it was quite an intrusive place, most mornings i was woken up by staff coming into my room for various reasons and the people there weren’t the brightest or best of the bunch either, constant arguing, doors slamming, fighting, known drug use and alcohol abuse, but i have family and one of them took me in after being at the hostel for several months.. i don’t think i’d manage if i didn’t have my family around to rely on to keep a roof over my head, i have often thought about suicide, not about doing it, but just how i would do it, but this only happens when my mental state hits rock bottom and the heavy depression kicks in

          • overburdenddonkey

            k s
            yes, the truth is always easy to recognize, as it always makes sense…you’ll find learning become easier as you heal and regain your own mind…..

  8. Pingback: Homelessness and Housing Shortages, a deliberate plan of inequality, sacrificing the poor | Uttrycka Talang

  9. But JSA conditionality and sanctions are set to become a major factor in making claimants homeless.

  10. Reblogged this on splashpilion and commented:
    The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Homeless Claimants) Amendment Regulations in brief:

    Work Coaches can decide whether a claimant becoming homeless constitutes a ‘domestic emergency’. If it does, there is no prescribed time limit for which they can apply the easement, but it will only apply as long as the claimant’s circumstances constitute a domestic emergency.
    ‘Domestic emergency’ is determined on a case-by-case basis but these regulations only apply to individuals who have recently become homelessness.
    The easement is conditional upon the claimant taking reasonable steps to find accommodation, and removes the requirement for the claimant to be:
    available for work;
    actively seeking work;
    subject to a Jobseeker’s Direction; or
    participating in the Work Programme.
    The easement is not expected to last for more than four weeks as it would be unusual for a domestic emergency to last longer than this period, though Work Coaches can extend the duration if considered appropriate.
    The claimant must prove they are taking reasonable action to find accommodation. These actions will be agreed between the claimant and Work Coach and recorded on the JSA Claimant Commitment.

    • The homeless charity poverty pimps have been mugged by IDS as agents (Work Coachs) for the secretary of state already had the power to wave JSA conditionality.

    • Their phraseology is chilling … an “easement”; the “work coach” will decide whether becoming homeless is a domestic emergency …

      The DHSS (as was), – as an unwieldy bureaucratic institution, has morphed, across the years, until it now has at its heart a twisted terminology; inbuilt ‘catch-22s’ and wheels-within-wheels ‘which drive’ policy. Weird and woeful turns-of-phrase, constantly redefined, dictate allegedly ‘reasonable’ demands. Demands that bear no relation to labour market concerns and disregard the individual(s) at the sharp end of ever-changing, mindless, cruel dictats.

      Work search ‘tools’ (re)designed by psychologists …

  11. Void seeker – JSA making people homeless – so what direction is this going. First force people out of their accommodation, many disabled, then clear them off the streets into hostels which don’t appear to be under any legal requirement to provide safe accommodation of a decent standard? This country, overnight, has become a very scary place to live.

    • Given the age demographic would imagine there are going to be a lot more grannies and granddads joining the young homeless on the streets.

      • In Oz, the States and Canada they have already noticed that. With the pension age being put back and Jobseekers and sickness being made so hard to get, and the shortage of affordable accommodation it will be happening here soon.

  12. True Tory and scummy Supposed Homeless “Leaders” [what a sick joke…] bringing you their latest social cleansing Idea.

    “You know Bob, we’ve got to do something abot these increasing amounts of homelessnes on our fair city streets.”
    “Well Harry, I have just the thing for that, I’ve got some crowded Hostels, the residents won’t mind more being jammed in, even if they did, tough. In these Austere times, were all in it together”
    “Cheers old chap – you know this helps us out in other ways?”
    “What do you mean Harry.”
    “Well when they fail they’ll be back out on the streets and angry as the system is setup to fail them. You know they’ll run riot then.”
    “Brilliant, and then we can put them in prison where they all belong, rather than blocking Their Betters Doors with their bodies, mind you a good cold winter would take care of that problem. And we can big up the Tough on Crime aspect as well..”

  13. Intrenstingly if you follow the link to the charities web page sycophantic news release and in the first paragraph the DWP Link you will find a buried treasure of impact analysis of the condems final solution agenda. Its chilling at best and dangerous eugenic dogmatic idealism at its wost, but nothing more than expected from the pretenders in the palace of falsehoods at Westminster by the lake. In the words of the squatter in number 10 nothing more, nothing less.
    Tommaz jay

  14. Considering many landlords won’t take anyone who needs Housing Benefit, this means they’ll need to build a lot of hostels, because they’re going to be full to bursting.

    I’ve spent time in a Salvation Army hostel – against my will, long story. I was scared for myself, scared for my (meagre) possessions and was given a key to the bathroom to lock myself in due to the risk of rape in the corridors and toilets. Life was regimented, rules were too many to remember, there was a curfew, tea was only given at set times and the staff were interfering, if well-meaning. I haven’t even touched on how scared I was of the amount of hard drug-taking, stealing and general air of menace I encountered. It was an awful experience that I won’t ever forget and I hope never to repeat.

    All of this rather than build affordable housing. What tossers.

  15. “Cartoon depicting capitalists and landlords versus workers, 1909”


  16. ‘Old Betty Higden however tired, however footsore, would start up and be driven away by her awakened horror of falling into the hands of Charity. It is a remarkable Christian improvement, to have made a pursuing Fury of the Good Samaritan; but it was so in this case, and it is a type of many, many, many.’ Betty Higden, fleeing to avoid the workhouse, surviving as a travelling pedlar, and finally dying, in Dickens’s ‘Our Mutual Friend’.

    How things have changed since the 1860s … ?

  17. Bloody hell! This government are really enjoying this aren’t they. People will be put into workhouses, that’s what they are after and have been all along. Many people will die if this comes about.
    How much more is needed to make the people of the UK stand up and take this government apart?
    Please let us get Independence in Scotland…

  18. Reblogged this on Jay's Journal and commented:
    Unbloodybelievable but true and scary…

  19. This is a bit long, but worth reading. Once again this unelected bunch of toss*rs are in breach of Human Rights (Quelle Surprise!)

    The right to housing is included in several international legally-binding documents. Among the most significant of these is the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (article 11.1), which determines that

    “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.”

    In order to clarify the meaning and scope of the right to housing as expressed in the Covenant, in 1991 the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the body that monitors the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, issued its General Comment 4.

    The right to adequate housing applies to everyone. The phrase “himself and his family” does not refer to any limitation in the right to housing to individuals, female-headed households, or other groups. Furthermore, individuals, as well as families, are entitled to adequate housing regardless of age, economic status, group or other affiliation or status, and enjoyment of this right must not be subject to any form of discrimination. (paragraph 6)

    The right to housing should be interpreted in a broad and inclusive sense as the right to live in “security, peace and dignity” rather than a narrow or restrictive sense. The right to housing is inextricably linked to other fundamental human rights and should been seen as referring to not only housing by adequate housing (paragraph 7). The right to adequate housing must be viewed in conjunction with other human rights included in the two International Covenants and other international instruments (paragraph 9).

    While the definition of “adequacy” with regard to housing is influenced by social, economic, cultural, climatic, ecological, and other factors, certain aspects of the right are applicable in any context. These are:

    Legal security of tenure. Security of tenure means that all people in any living arrangement possess a degree of security against forced eviction, harassment, or other threats. States are obliged to confer this security legally.

    Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure. To ensure the health, security, comfort, and nutrition of its occupants, an adequate house should have sustainable access to natural and common resources, safe drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation and washing facilities, means of food storage, refuse disposal, site drainage and emergency services.

    Affordability. Affordable housing is housing for which the associated financial costs are at a level that does not threaten other basic needs. States should take steps to ensure that housing costs are proportionate to overall income levels, establish subsidies for those unable to acquire affordable housing, and protect tenants against unreasonable rent levels or increases. In societies where housing is built chiefly out of natural materials, states should help ensure the availability of those materials.

    Habitability. Habitable housing provides the occupants with adequate space, physical security, shelter from weather, and protection from threats to health like structural hazards and disease.

    Accessibility. Adequate housing must be accessible to those entitled to it. This includes all disadvantaged groups of society, who may have special housing needs that require extra consideration.

    Location. The location of adequate housing, whether urban or rural, must permit access to employment opportunities, health care, schools, child care and other social facilities. To protect the right to health of the occupants, housing must also be separated from polluted sites or pollution sources.

    Cultural adequacy. The way housing is built, the materials used, and the policies supporting these must facilitate cultural expression and housing diversity. The development and modernization of housing in general should maintain the cultural dimensions of housing while still ensuring modern technological facilities, among other things (paragraph 8).

    The Commission on Human Settlements’ Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000 (1998) provides another definition of adequacy:

    “Adequate shelter means … adequate privacy, adequate space, adequate security, adequate lighting and ventilation, adequate basic infrastructure and adequate location with regard to work and basic facilities – all at a reasonable cost.”

    • All fine stuff, but fundamentally in a system where people have to pay rent there is no right to housing – it remains a privilege. We could also talk about the whole idea of ‘affordability’ but under capitalism housing has never been affordable given that the financing of housing is relatively short term, for profit and attracts interest rates that are far more than would be the case if just a charge for the administration of the loan was being charged. There is also the issue of highly inflated land prices. Agricultural land in rural areas is valued at something like ten percent of the value of similar land in the same area that has planning permission on it. In urban areas land values are many times that – the only reason:greed.

      It’s not beyond the wit for ordinary people to realise this and act accordingly.

      I personally believe that housing should be a right, even though the business of providing a home is an amazingly complex issue, it’s something that is achievable but for one thing:capitalism and associated greed. Anarchists have often had some interesting insights into housing, and as a thought provoking introduction to the issues, Colin Ward’s ‘Housing: An Anarchist Approach’ (Freedom Press) is well worth a read.

  20. Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
    Johnny Void here points out another serious issue, which would otherwise go unnoticed. Unfortunately, he is right about the terrible conditions in some homeless hostels. The New York municipal shelter system in the 1980s was closed down and effectively privatised because of the violence and drug use amongst some residents. When Bristol Uni’s archaeology department ran a project on the archaeology of homelessness in Bristol, one of the project’s founders stated that one of the city’s hostels was actually so bad that one of the homeless people involved in the project actually moved out rather than stay there. As for altering benefits in order to force residents into such accommodation, you can see why both the DWP and the homeless charities will approve of it. The charities will get more money, while the DWP will use it to take homeless people of the streets. It will make them invisible, and so give the impression that homelessness has been solved. In the meantime, the sanctions system will lead to more people starving to death. It is also likely to lead to a massive increase in violent crime as people with absolutely no alternative source of income are forced to rob and steal simply to survive. Not that this will bother Cameron and Osborne, as they live in the leafy villages far from the urban centres affected by homelessness.
    I also wonder whether these policies are deliberately designed to kill the homeless. In the 1990s during the war in Bosnia, extreme Rightists in Latin America took ethnic cleansing and decided to apply it to the social undesirables in their countries. They called it ‘social cleansing’. As an example, one of the British broadcasters showed footage of a tramp in Colombia being murdered by Fascist thugs on the street. Given the way a sizable segment of the present Tory party seems to have had links the Nazi right, would anyone be surprised if the Tories had cheered when the footage of this atrocity was shown, and thought it would be a good idea here in Blighty?

  21. beastrabban – been there done that myself back in the late seventies, was in ymca when man came in pissed, and then pissed at the end of the bed and looked at me when I woke up. I never slept after that and left the next day for the streets until I managed to secure a place elsewhere weeks later. Not somewhere I would ever go ever again, or any place like it. I was a young lad then and have learnt better since then.

  22. Norma(n) Tebbit on R4 (again) this evening (still) saying that equality is not possible, nor achievable, and so “fairness” is what we ought to hope for. His definition of “fairness” – “Those who try hard” should be well rewarded – in money terms – but people who “don’t make the effort” should expect to receive a boot stamping on their face, for ever. (I am paraphrasing him, just slightly)

  23. Please can you show me when in the new regs it says that people have to move into hostels? I’ve looked through them and my interpretation is that people in supported accommodation may qualify for this new four week easement, as will newly homeless rough sleepers, and that there isn’t any guidance yet on whether people who are sofa surfing will qualify. “Reasonable steps” to find accommodation have to be agreed with a jobcentre advisor, so if a person makes it clear at this point that hostel accommodation is not suitable for them, I don’t see how they can be forced into a hostel. I expect “reasonable steps” to include making a homeless application with the Local Authority and registering for social housing. Have I got this wrong? My main problem with these new regulations is that this four week easement period is nowhere near long enough to find a tenancy for most people unless they are found to be in priority need by the L. A. and that it will only apply to newly homeless people, meaning that people who are not classed as newly homeless will still have to prove they are available for work and meet all the requirements of their Jobseekers Agreement or risk being sanctioned. This is about the easement period not going nearly far enough to be useful. I don’t see why it would force anyone into hostel accommodation if they don’t want to be there. I work with people with drug and alcohol problems, and welfare rights is my main area of interest… I love challenging bad DWP decisions (and yes, there are a lot of them) so it’s important to me to understand what these regulations will mean for the people I support.

    • Looks like IDS has imposed parameters (defined in law) – the four weeks ‘easement of conditionality’, curtailing the open ended discretion that was already (technically) within the powers of the work coach agents.

      • The way I read it, this is an exemption in addition to the discretion already within the powers of job coaches. It’s a token exemption and it won’t help much but job coaches will still have the same discretion when drawing up Jobseekers Agreements/ Claimant Commitments / Work Programme Agreements.

        • In any case the work coach will err on the side of IDS and the charitable stakeholders safe in the knowledge that the HMCTS will find in their favour, if not IDS can always rewrite the law in 6hrs and 45mins.

          • I agree, he did it with the WP and he’ll undoubtedly try it again. It sounds as though you would support the withdrawal of funding from homelessness charities. As far as I can see, homelessness charities are about as far as you can get from being on the same side as the Tories. HMCTS finds against the DWP in most of the cases I’m involved in. I think it’s playing into the hands of the Tories to slate hostels. They were never my cup of tea. I always felt safer sleeping on the streets with my mates than on my own in a hostel or night shelter, but I appreciate that not everyone feels the same and hostels can be a useful stopgap for some people. Closing hostels will withdraw an option for people with very few options open to them as it is.

  24. Paul Anderson

    Please watch Homeless Link’s website over the next few days and a full summary of the new regs (including the role of homeless people in developing them) will be produced. I hope this will address some of the fears people have got above. Some of which we will try and answer specifically.

    There is no question of forcing people into hostels or into anything else which the summary will show. The idea is to try and give a longer “breathing space” to newly homeless people who want it than exists under current rules where easement periods can only be for a week and applied four times a year.

    In other words whilst newly homeless people are trying to sort accommodation out they don’t have to worry about doing 40 hours of job search each week.

    Ideally we would like no sanctions on any homeless people and a system which helped them move towards well-paid employment & that is what we lobby for regularly

    This is a step, all be it a small one, in the right direction. There really is no down-side to it other than it does not go as far as we would all like

    • One can only but enjoy the hilarity of your phrase ‘Well paid’.
      The consensus amongst all in power is that ‘Minimum wage’ is sufficient, whilst they themselves actually have an income iro £3000 per week and get £100 a week to spend on tax free tax payer subsidized lunches.
      I cannot guess what you are on, but ‘Nitrous Oxide’ comes to mind.
      NOBODY with influence wishes ordinary people to be ‘well paid’;They imported 9 million 3rd world people to avoid just that.
      If you cannot post without insulting our intelligence,perhaps it would be better if you keep your propaganda for where somebody may clap and say ‘here here’. In other words, belt up and shove off.

    • Thanks Paul, that’s useful.

  25. Thanks for this informative article which tells us about some of the nasty stuff previously decent and caring charities are getting up to, fired up with right-wing ideology (and 6 figure paycheques) for the people that run them nowadays.

    I get the impression that homeless people would be better off living on the streets,or even in prison,rather than handing themselves over to the ‘homelessness industry’. Sanctioning homeless people,many of whom would be quite incapable of holding down a job,even a forced workfare one due to,say, a combination of almost insurmountable substance abuse related and mental difficulties, is like saying ‘we don’t care,it’s all your own fault,go away and starve or freeze to death’.

    Seems the sociopaths in control are all around us. This is getting to be a very nasty country filled with some very unpleasant people. Ebenezer Scrooge would be proud of some of you horrible bastards who run things.

    • Lee, if you vote for any party politician you can expect more of the same.
      Their ultimate goal is ten years on the gravy wage train ( and the pension for ten years is £300 a week).
      Thats why Ed miliband wears more make up than Elvis.
      If the opinion polls swung in favor of eating sparrows, he would come out in favor of sparrow and parsnip pie.
      He may do a ‘Mr Burns’ and take a nibble on T.V.
      Its likely he would cock it up even worse than Burns did tho.

  26. Incompetent people with plans – very dangerous!

  27. Why lobby for something that will never happen unless to justify ones own existence! Charities – never trust them!

  28. Arbiet Macht Frei (again)

    The cartoons that annos posted are chilling in that they were done 100 years ago and they clearly show what direction Tories want the UK to go.
    Congratulations to them …. they have nearly achieved it without anybody really noticing it!

    Back on Topic… DWP And Homelessness Charities Link Up To Bully Homeless Benefit Claimants

    Someone needs to make a list of all the charities that are league with the DWP bully boys and educate the public NOT to give money to them. Something Johnny Void was trying to with workfare associate “charities”.

    If the “charities” are really masked money making businesses then they need to be put out of business,
    I’ve always been suspect of eg “Big Issue” to name but one and St Mungos looks like another.

  29. Pingback: A Return to the Workhouse? | jaynelinney

  30. overburdenddonkey

    the staggering and exponential increase in the use of sanctions in scotland 2013…900000!…reported wings over scotland today but i’ll post the heralds story http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/jobless-hit-as-sanctions-on-benefits-soar.24639473

  31. overburdenddonkey

    the rational is the increase/increasing the power of the home/share owning voter, who profit from protecting their vested interests… now in easement of actively seeking work, to constantly having to prove that one is “actively seeking accommodation” the new jsa conditionality, which is what it amounts to… not only are there no fcuking jobs…there are no fcuking homes…solution to both build more fcuking homes this of course won’t suit the “home/share owning democracy”….

  32. have a look at this:

    the MP speaking before Glenda is Mark Harper, former disablility minister when the tories were the opposition. He’s another tory cunt

    • Brilliant. As for In-desputably Stupid smirking away, What goes around comes Around. His comeupance will happen. People wil be asking in 10 years time “In-desputably Stupid”? Who was he? Hear he’s a tramp in Westminister, getting moved on all the time by the Razzers…

    • You can’t shame that idiot he’s too thick skinned. Best in 10 months give the cretin his marching orders.

    • We should all give Glenda the credit she deserved for her insightful, fearlesss attacks on the opposition and their policies.

    • Great clip! Good on you Glenda! Steam into those Tory bastards and give it to them hard.

    • Yes! Good on ya Glenda! Fight the good fight!

  33. Soon everyone will be too busy proving they’re looking for work to be able to actually look for work, let alone eat, sleep and do all the normal things a human is expected to do – let alone have a life.

    Then again, maybe that is the ultimate aim!

    I look forward to hearing how this codswalop of a scheme works in practice. Won’t be long before some one a] kills someone, or b] commits suicide

  34. overburdenddonkey

    prospective scottish labour mp resigns…
    http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-new-socialist/ to see why she did….

    • overburdenddonkey

      p s i’ve just noticed something else of a freudian slip…it would be insulting whatever word she used “(and to think otherwise BETRAYS crass naivety)” ie goes against crass naivety…the word she was looking for would have been portray…

  35. Read this shit and see just what ruthless horrible greedy bastards our selfserving polititions really are. We’re all in it together aren’t we???


  36. Ok so theyre all self serving cunts. We know the tories are an Oxbridge gang that represent the rich and all their needs. The ‘opposition’ is also comprised of the same public school Oxbridge educated gang. Thatcher said her greatest acievement was creating New Labour. Its pointless hoping they will do something.
    Nothing will change until theres a violent revolution to overthrow this corrupt system.

  37. Non-cooperation with any of this rotten lot and their despicable, heinous policies is the only way and that applies with Jobcentre staff who should just refuse to sanction. Following the rules is not an excuse!

  38. A lot of senseless tripe being posted here.

    Typical, emotive, leftist drivel; we’ve been warned of people dying in the streets of starvation or cold ever since Labour lost power and will continue to be so warned until they regain power, at which point the politically motivated whining will cease.

    • overburdenddonkey

      my hope is that one day you will look back and see the senseless tripe that you have just posted 🙂

    • Yes, there’s hardly anyone starving or begging in the city centre here – just one or two figments of (collective) overheated imaginations …

      • As Glenda Jackson says, above – IDS is hoping that the people of this country won’t (somehow) see what’s happening around them.

      • And this new law is designed to help the people who are begging and starving – but that doesn’t matter to you, because you’re a politically motivated dingus who would oppose legislation that promised a brand new flat to every homeless individual if it was introduced under a Tory government.

        • Yes, the Tories are doing all they can to help people either into or out of the gutter – depending on how you see the general ethos behind their attempts to “help”. They are firmly on the side of the ‘little people’; always have been.

          (The same goes for the NewTories who’ve also (not) aimed to alleviate or propogate poverty since 1997 – again depending on your perspective.

        • That might appear so, but any utterances by the parasites who occupy the Palace of Westminster must be considered as doublespeak. ‘Help’ in this context probably means a mild form of the kind of help afforded to the Nazi defined social undesirables in Third Reich Germany. i.e.their concentrations in institutions where they can be controlled/kept away from public view. We are all aware of what can happen once the step to remove the recogniton that we all share an equal claim to humanity. I’m not claiming that things will end up the way they did under the Hitler regime, but the same dehumanising process is chillingly present. It may not be direct government policy, but the fact that the government allows MSM (owned, by and large by regime supporters) to get away with such demonisation is telling.

          I don’t think anyone would seriously oppose any Tory legislation that would grant the disposessed a brand new flat, but the weakness of that argument shows how out of touch you really are – the notion of even Labour making such an offer would seem so unbelievably outlandish as to lack credence thesedays, and most of us would then be confirmed in our opinions that the Tories are an insane bunch if they did indeed make such an offer!

        • You’d have to be a complete moron to believe the Tories want to help poor people. How much evidence do you need?

        • overburdenddonkey

          no, it demonizes new homeless claimants, by blaming them for homelessness…consider what went before this new law when it was accepted that jsa conditionality could not for practical reasons be applied to homeless people, but now it can be!

  39. Off subject a little but just another very good reason I think NOT to allow access to UJM; Allowing access allows a faceless individual to put forward a doubt which then goes to another faceless person, a decision maker. You are making it easy for them – typically cowardly types, to sanction without comebacks. No UJM access means one will know or have a very good idea WHO raised that doubt; probably the last advisor one saw. My view is that many of these advisors who sanction are cowardly by nature (cowards are the worst offenders) so they will think twice if they know that the claimant knows they are responsible for sanctioning. I suspect this was part of the UJM account idea – easy, faceless, comeback free sanctioning.

  40. I’ve never used that crap site myself but I’d suspect random advisers/job coaches (or whatever silly name they call themselves now) would be spying on people’s accounts at random times – not just on signing days and any compliance doubts raised would be anonymous. Correct me please if I’m wrong!

  41. One man had his benefits reduced to about £11 a week after sanctions were applied when he failed to attend an interview with a work programme

    I was sanctioned for 4 weeks for missing an a4e appointment they seized ALL the jsa payments from a JOINT claim the stupid appeal tribunal service upheld the sanction last week.

  42. whilst thinking back to the 50s I can see a family living in a tenement building like callum a light swinging on the ceiling in every room yes whot a pretty site for these familys living there the only good thing was a roof over their heads yet these leeches take us back farther intime to the poor house you bet youd have to stack shelves you bet it wont be a nice place you bet theyl sanction one has soon has but their help they tell us provided by them were they pushed more into povety than any other government sanctions denial of benefits are the order of the day jeff3

  43. Landless Peasant

    Meanwhile, Millions of ££s is to be paid out in bonuses to failed Work Programme Providers:


  44. Paul Anderson

    I know there has been some concern about the new easement regulations. Hopefully the attached guidance, which explains them in more details, will reassure people.

    Click to access Easement%20Regulations%20Guidance.pdf

  45. such steps as are reasonable for him (sic) to take to find living accommodation.”

    sounds similar to

    S7 of the jobseeker’s Act. S7(1), which provides:

    “a person is actively seeking work if he takes in that week such steps as he could reasonably be expected to have to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment.”

    It look like there’s nothing new in this.by finding an address,someone is is taking steps towards employment.it isn’t unreasonable that someone who is homeless is likely to have a “universal jobmatch” account.

    • Then the ‘steps’ to be discussed, written down, ‘agreed to’ and the person interrogated at their next appointment and if decided ‘necessary’ disallowed their money they ought to receive. The ‘steps’ to be gradually increased/expanded into further ‘reasonable’ numbers of things to do? … as part of the incremental switch-over to a more inhumane society. Once these things are in place they’re then (supposedly) part of a legitimate process.

  46. He can afford a pooch mind? Personally I don’t think the homeless should have pets as it seems cruel.

  47. its all to do with the yanky way all companys will make make monies from the homeless sanction them thuss making more oh don’t forget those food stamps coming from morgans bank who like them all are making monies out of the homeless yes a very caring story but sadly it isn’t its all about making monies jeff3

  48. Its a down right disgrace that anyone at all is on the streets,Ex army ,Ex workers and Ex drunks Ex anyone ,They are on the street because of total incompetence from councils and the ones in power . The homes that are not being built and the Excrement spoken to be elected and all the promises end in one place only ,and thats, Homeless and moved on with expensive camping equipment confiscated in 2014 , due to Medieval style camping laws .In the name of sanity what are they doing to everyone ? picture this … You are working in your job happy but just getting by week to week with small loans , then all of a sudden the rich pop up and start taxing the energy companies leaving them no choice but to put the prices up . on petrol too so you end up in a vicious circle on the money go round until you find under new EU rules your not qualified for your job so your laid off . you then go to the dole office , the safety net , you fill the form in wrong and Whack ,, sanctioned for 4 weeks ,no money to pay your loan payment s , baliffs , eviction , banks rubbing its hands at getting the house back off you as planned , you are wise enough to keep a few quid under the bed to buy a tent and sleeping bag to save your life in mid winter that you cannot use by law and risk having it confiscated or jumped on by drunks , or even burnt by idiots , you then have to pester the dole at £6 a go on a public phone , travel by train to the hostel that’s always full of people who will stick a syringe in you in your sleep.., you phone shelter who are very sympathetic at wasting your phone credit who on;y have one interest and thats to fast track them self into a managers job and the 25% the charity makes from donations . so now you have spent your food money on never ending sympathy , So there you are , alone , hungry , with no place to go or rest . try all this when ill and cant walk far for an even better laugh ?? as some find this sort of life amusing ,especially the ones who are sitting in the warm dreaming up more and more ways to punish the poor , sick and unemployed . The answer to all this is to put OUR money where their mouth is and build houses , create jobs that anyone can do , and actually run the country in the benefit of us and not all for themselves with their private medical , and job insurance and everything that makes their life worry free and Rosy , leaving the people who put them there to suffer hypothermia and bear names like Workshy scroungers , the are handing out endurance to others that they will never have to endure themselves. and all because they know exactly what they are doing , creating a system that makes people homeless to raid their property on eviction and cash in on misery , pointing the bony finger at the weakest of all , the disabled and jobless . it make me ill the more i realize whats going on .

  49. Pingback: DWP And Homelessness Charities Link Up To Bully Homeless Benefit Claimants | Beat the Bullies

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s