I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have 
been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years 
(Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He 
says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), they 
cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then 
he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having 
kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.

Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn up 
every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that not 
really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they chuck 
you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.

He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.

Regards,

Danny

"Blueyonder"  wrote in message 
news:2eUai.140179$Ug.41929@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have 
>been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years 
>(Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He 
>says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), they 
>cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then 
>he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having 
>kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>
> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn 
> up every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can 
> that not really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would 
> they chuck you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of 
> some sort ?.

They cant really touch you if you have kids to feed, although he could face 
some petty sanction for refusing a job, its not really worth bothering 
about.
Anyway his missus could claim if he was knocked off the dole.

>
> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> Danny
>

The main problem is the cost of living, people cant afford to live on the 
minimum wage. The dole pays more than the NMW, then there is job security to 
consider, most crap jobs dont last 5 minutes.
Factor in all the hassle you would get in a crap job, the costs of getting 
to work, the amount of fucking about having to claim HB + CTB and child care 
allowance.
He could end up claiming more if he got a minimum wage job but he would be 
no better off, in fact it is more likely that he would end up worse off.

Anyway you get the picture, it would cost the tax payer more if he got a job 
as he would still be on benefits, factor in child care allowance and there 
you have it.
We have far too many refugees and immigrants looking for work as it is, the 
current UK population does not need to work as long as we have migrants to 
do it for us.

Good man T. Blair.

"Blueyonder"  wrote in message
news:2eUai.140179$Ug.41929@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
> been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
> (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
> says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), they
> cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
> he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
> kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>
> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn up
> every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that not
> really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they chuck
> you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.
>
> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.

Pretty much. With 4 kids he'd have to earn a considerable amount to be significantly
better off than on the dole (probably over £30k).  So there's no incentive.  Sums up
the problem with the policies of this government.

--
Andy

On Jun 10, 3:51 pm, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
> I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
> been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
> (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
> says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), they
> cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
> he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
> kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>
> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn up
> every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that not
> really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they chuck
> you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.
>
> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> Danny

Hardsip payments can be made to any JSA claimant whose benefit is
sanctioned or disallowed for refusing a job, training etc.  With him
having kids, and I assume no other income save CHB & TC, he would
qualify for hardship payments from day one.  IIRC the reduction would
be as little as 20% of the couple rate personal allowance so less than
£20 pw.

Where there no kids and neither he nor ptr had and health probs he
would have to wait 2 weeks to qualify for hardship payts.

Mike

On Jun 10, 8:16 pm, "Andy Pandy" <spam8ti...@wonderful.spam.invalid>
wrote:
> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>
> news:2eUai.140179$Ug.41929@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> > I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
> > been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
> > (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
> > says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), they
> > cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
> > he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
> > kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>
> > Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn up
> > every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that not
> > really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they chuck
> > you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.
>
> > He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>
> Pretty much. With 4 kids he'd have to earn a considerable amount to be significantly
> better off than on the dole (probably over £30k).  So there's no incentive.  Sums up
> the problem with the policies of this government.
>
> --
> Andy

Sums up the problem with his birth control as well.  I have 2 kids and
am sticking at that, I can afford them without having to rely on TC.
I've seen it hundreds of times, go on the dole with one or two sprogs,
five years later three or four and no job they can get will ever pay
enough to cover the benefits, free school meals etc.  TC go some way
to adressing the problem but the lazy scroats are all to often happy
to stay on benefits, by the time the kids are old enough they have
been on the rock'n'roll for a dozen years and unemployable.

I knew a chap who after 6 years unemployed (not on benefits) kept
having 'panic attacks' when he started a job, his wife was well
connected and got him nearly a dozen jobs over three years.  Money was
a side issue.  None lasted a week and the record was an hour, therapy
did no good, he was happy as larry at home doing next to nothing,
mention work and he went all pale.

She got fed up chucked him out and last I heard he was happy in a
bedsit on JSA.

Mike

Hi,
Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have been 
possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on 
benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it though, 
I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse everything 
they offered, which can't be easy.

I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not get 
Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment cover it 
all ?.

Regards,

Danny


"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:1181504552.591375.254910@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 10, 3:51 pm, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
> I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
> been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
> (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
> says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), 
> they
> cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
> he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
> kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>
> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn 
> up
> every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that 
> not
> really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they 
> chuck
> you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.
>
> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> Danny

Hardsip payments can be made to any JSA claimant whose benefit is
sanctioned or disallowed for refusing a job, training etc.  With him
having kids, and I assume no other income save CHB & TC, he would
qualify for hardship payments from day one.  IIRC the reduction would
be as little as 20% of the couple rate personal allowance so less than
£20 pw.

Where there no kids and neither he nor ptr had and health probs he
would have to wait 2 weeks to qualify for hardship payts.

Mike

"Blueyonder"  wrote in message 
news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi,
> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have been 
> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on 
> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it 
> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse 
> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>
> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not 
> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment 
> cover it all ?.
>

They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was suspended 
he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:50:11 +0100, "Niteawk" 
wrote:

>
>"Blueyonder"  wrote in message 
>news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Hi,
>> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have been 
>> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on 
>> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it 
>> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse 
>> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>>
>> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not 
>> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment 
>> cover it all ?.
>>
>
>They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was suspended 
>he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.
>

Until hios children are how old?
Can't they make you go out to work when they're 11?
-- 
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

Hi,
Thanks for that, did not think it would be that easy !, I suppose if I had 4 
kids I could pack my Job in and start to Sign On, although I think I would 
get a bit of hassle at the interview if I told them I did not want to work 
!, or I suppose the way round it is to say you do want a Job etc just to get 
you registered and then after that just tell them that no job is suitable, 
although I seem to remember that you could not refuse a job just beacuase it 
was low paid ?, mind you its the hassle every week or whatever that would 
put me off !.

Danny

"Niteawk"  wrote in message 
news:If-dneeNJMdZkfDbRVnygAA@bt.com...
>
> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message 
> news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Hi,
>> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have been 
>> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on 
>> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it 
>> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse 
>> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>>
>> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not 
>> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment 
>> cover it all ?.
>>
>
> They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was 
> suspended he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.
>
>

"Mogga"  wrote in message 
news:ngeq631ria9rr08qr0epslv1teghrhbd02@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:50:11 +0100, "Niteawk" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>>news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> Hi,
>>> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have 
>>> been
>>> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on
>>> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it
>>> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse
>>> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>>>
>>> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not
>>> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment
>>> cover it all ?.
>>>
>>
>>They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was 
>>suspended
>>he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.
>>
>
> Until hios children are how old?
> Can't they make you go out to work when they're 11?

They cant make people go out to work, the best they can do is force people 
to apply for crap jobs and if they refuse, then they can apply for sanction.
Forcing people in this way to apply for jobs wastes the employers time, for 
eg having applied for just about every job there is or was going, I end up 
applying for jobs that I havent got cat in hells chance of getting just to 
keep the JC happy.

I applied for a job recently under their rules, only because I had to. I got 
a nice letter back telling me I was not the right type of person they were 
looking for, adding that loads of people applied but none were suitable (all 
from the JC no doubt) and that they will be readvertising the job, the 
letter was their way of saying please do not apply for this job again.

On Jun 11, 1:08 pm, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for that, did not think it would be that easy !, I suppose if I had 4
> kids I could pack my Job in and start to Sign On, although I think I would
> get a bit of hassle at the interview if I told them I did not want to work
> !, or I suppose the way round it is to say you do want a Job etc just to get
> you registered and then after that just tell them that no job is suitable,
> although I seem to remember that you could not refuse a job just beacuase it
> was low paid ?, mind you its the hassle every week or whatever that would
> put me off !.
>
> Danny
>
> "Niteawk"  wrote in message
>
> news:If-dneeNJMdZkfDbRVnygAA@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
> >news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Hi,
> >> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have been
> >> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on
> >> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it
> >> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse
> >> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>
> >> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not
> >> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment
> >> cover it all ?.
>
> > They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was
> > suspended he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I doubt the JC could hassle me any more than I already get at work
however I don't think I could live on the dole.  The novelty of being
at home with the kids and getting all my odd jobs done would wear off
after a year or so ....

Mike

Niteawk wrote:
> "Mogga"  wrote in message 
> news:ngeq631ria9rr08qr0epslv1teghrhbd02@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:50:11 +0100, "Niteawk" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>>> news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have 
>>>> been
>>>> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on
>>>> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it
>>>> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse
>>>> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>>>>
>>>> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not
>>>> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment
>>>> cover it all ?.
>>>>
>>> They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was 
>>> suspended
>>> he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.
>>>
>> Until hios children are how old?
>> Can't they make you go out to work when they're 11?
> 
> They cant make people go out to work, the best they can do is force people 
> to apply for crap jobs and if they refuse, then they can apply for sanction.
> Forcing people in this way to apply for jobs wastes the employers time, for 
> eg having applied for just about every job there is or was going, I end up 
> applying for jobs that I havent got cat in hells chance of getting just to 
> keep the JC happy.
> 
> I applied for a job recently under their rules, only because I had to. I got 
> a nice letter back telling me I was not the right type of person they were 
> looking for, adding that loads of people applied but none were suitable (all 
> from the JC no doubt) and that they will be readvertising the job, the 
> letter was their way of saying please do not apply for this job again.
> 
> 
> 

What would you do if you were offerd a job?

-- 
Robbie

Was there not something on the News a few weeks back with John Hutton saying 
that they are going to Get though on Benefit Claimants, or the Long Term 
Unemployed, so surely this would put a end to this Just Claiming Benefit 
forever ?.

Danny.

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:5d6q5tF2qd78tU2@mid.individual.net...
> Niteawk wrote:
>> "Mogga"  wrote in message 
>> news:ngeq631ria9rr08qr0epslv1teghrhbd02@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:50:11 +0100, "Niteawk" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>>>> news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have 
>>>>> been
>>>>> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people 
>>>>> on
>>>>> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it
>>>>> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just 
>>>>> refuse
>>>>> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would 
>>>>> not
>>>>> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment
>>>>> cover it all ?.
>>>>>
>>>> They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was 
>>>> suspended
>>>> he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.
>>>>
>>> Until hios children are how old?
>>> Can't they make you go out to work when they're 11?
>>
>> They cant make people go out to work, the best they can do is force 
>> people to apply for crap jobs and if they refuse, then they can apply for 
>> sanction.
>> Forcing people in this way to apply for jobs wastes the employers time, 
>> for eg having applied for just about every job there is or was going, I 
>> end up applying for jobs that I havent got cat in hells chance of getting 
>> just to keep the JC happy.
>>
>> I applied for a job recently under their rules, only because I had to. I 
>> got a nice letter back telling me I was not the right type of person they 
>> were looking for, adding that loads of people applied but none were 
>> suitable (all from the JC no doubt) and that they will be readvertising 
>> the job, the letter was their way of saying please do not apply for this 
>> job again.
>>
>>
>>
>
> What would you do if you were offerd a job?
>
> -- 
> Robbie

"Blueyonder"  wrote in message
news:dBWbi.143342$4a.56952@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Was there not something on the News a few weeks back with John Hutton saying
> that they are going to Get though on Benefit Claimants, or the Long Term
> Unemployed, so surely this would put a end to this Just Claiming Benefit
> forever ?.

LOL!

It's like "closing tax loopholes".  It's something all governments say they'll do,
and make silly assumptions as to how much they'll save by doing it, but they then
find that putting the theory into practice is much harder that they assumed.

--
Andy

In message <2eUai.140179$Ug.41929@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Blueyonder 
 writes
>I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
>been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
>(Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
>says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), they
>cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
>he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
>kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.

Up to a point.  Whilst he has children under 16 he would usually receive 
JSA at a hardship rate which would only be reduced by 40% of the scale 
rate for a single person - in effect a reduction in total benefit income 
of only about £24 per week.

There is a criminal offence of "failure to maintain" under section 105 
of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, for any IS or JSA 
claimant  who "persistently refuses or neglects to maintain himself or 
any person whom he is liable to maintain" but I think the number of 
prosecutions under that provision is very small.

>Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn up
>every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that not
>really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they chuck
>you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.

Payments of "hardship rate" JSA are still payments of JSA and 
technically no further claim needs to be made.

You might want to consider whether your mate likes to boast to you that 
he manipulates the system with vigour but that when he is being given 
benefit direction by Jobcentre Plus he is actually more likely to say 
"yes sir, no sir, 3 bags full sir"...

>He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.

Yes, and it is these which help contribute to the total benefit income 
of c. £400 pw he will currently receive (assuming rent of say £80 pw, 
Council Tax of say £20 pw).

If he took a full-time job on the minimum wage he would superficially 
appear to be £100 pw better off - although you have to factor in the 
loss of free school meals, the extra costs of travel to work, and the 
odd way in which tax credits pay you sharply more in the first year that 
you return to work than in the second and subsequent years...

Clive
-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

"Clive Martin"  wrote in message 
news:Ia$soGCFAmdGFwrz@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
> In message <2eUai.140179$Ug.41929@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Blueyonder 
>  writes
>>I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
>>been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
>>(Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
>>says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), 
>>they
>>cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
>>he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
>>kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>
> Up to a point.  Whilst he has children under 16 he would usually receive 
> JSA at a hardship rate which would only be reduced by 40% of the scale 
> rate for a single person - in effect a reduction in total benefit income 
> of only about £24 per week.

Wrong.

>
> There is a criminal offence of "failure to maintain" under section 105 of 
> the Social Security Administration Act 1992, for any IS or JSA claimant 
> who "persistently refuses or neglects to maintain himself or any person 
> whom he is liable to maintain" but I think the number of prosecutions 
> under that provision is very small.


What the bollocking hell are you talking about now.

>
>>Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn 
>>up
>>every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that 
>>not
>>really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they 
>>chuck
>>you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.
>
> Payments of "hardship rate" JSA are still payments of JSA and technically 
> no further claim needs to be made.
>
> You might want to consider whether your mate likes to boast to you that he 
> manipulates the system with vigour but that when he is being given benefit 
> direction by Jobcentre Plus he is actually more likely to say "yes sir, no 
> sir, 3 bags full sir"...
>
>>He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>
> Yes, and it is these which help contribute to the total benefit income of 
> c. £400 pw he will currently receive (assuming rent of say £80 pw, Council 
> Tax of say £20 pw).
>
> If he took a full-time job on the minimum wage he would superficially 
> appear to be £100 pw better off - although you have to factor in the loss 
> of free school meals, the extra costs of travel to work, and the odd way 
> in which tax credits pay you sharply more in the first year that you 
> return to work than in the second and subsequent years...
>
> Clive
> -- 

This has been a Clive Martin production who talks in rules and regs, 
especially when they dont apply, and speaks fluent manual as per the book.


> my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

See what I mean ;)

Clive Martin wrote:
> In message <2eUai.140179$Ug.41929@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Blueyonder 
>  writes
>> I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I 
>> have
>> been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
>> (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so 
>> !, He
>> says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), 
>> they
>> cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even 
>> then
>> he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with 
>> having
>> kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
> 
> Up to a point.  Whilst he has children under 16 he would usually receive 
> JSA at a hardship rate which would only be reduced by 40% of the scale 
> rate for a single person - in effect a reduction in total benefit income 
> of only about £24 per week.
> 
> There is a criminal offence of "failure to maintain" under section 105 
> of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, for any IS or JSA 
> claimant  who "persistently refuses or neglects to maintain himself or 
> any person whom he is liable to maintain" but I think the number of 
> prosecutions under that provision is very small.
> 

I don't think there has been a prosecution since 1979, when the same 
wording was in the old Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. That was carried 
to the Social Security Act 1986 and then on to the administrative 
consolidation act in 1992.

9 people were prosecuted in 1979, two were jailed - then it seems to 
have stopped.

The original offence dates back to 1381 and the wording is remarkably 
similar as it was back then (albeit in less of the style of ye olde 
english)!


-- 
Robbie

Niteawk wrote:
> "Clive Martin"  wrote in message 
> news:Ia$soGCFAmdGFwrz@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <2eUai.140179$Ug.41929@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Blueyonder 
>>  writes
>>> I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
>>> been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
>>> (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
>>> says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), 
>>> they
>>> cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
>>> he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
>>> kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>> Up to a point.  Whilst he has children under 16 he would usually receive 
>> JSA at a hardship rate which would only be reduced by 40% of the scale 
>> rate for a single person - in effect a reduction in total benefit income 
>> of only about £24 per week.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
>> There is a criminal offence of "failure to maintain" under section 105 of 
>> the Social Security Administration Act 1992, for any IS or JSA claimant 
>> who "persistently refuses or neglects to maintain himself or any person 
>> whom he is liable to maintain" but I think the number of prosecutions 
>> under that provision is very small.
> 
> 
> What the bollocking hell are you talking about now.
> 
>>> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn 
>>> up
>>> every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that 
>>> not
>>> really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they 
>>> chuck
>>> you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.
>> Payments of "hardship rate" JSA are still payments of JSA and technically 
>> no further claim needs to be made.
>>
>> You might want to consider whether your mate likes to boast to you that he 
>> manipulates the system with vigour but that when he is being given benefit 
>> direction by Jobcentre Plus he is actually more likely to say "yes sir, no 
>> sir, 3 bags full sir"...
>>
>>> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>> Yes, and it is these which help contribute to the total benefit income of 
>> c. £400 pw he will currently receive (assuming rent of say £80 pw, Council 
>> Tax of say £20 pw).
>>
>> If he took a full-time job on the minimum wage he would superficially 
>> appear to be £100 pw better off - although you have to factor in the loss 
>> of free school meals, the extra costs of travel to work, and the odd way 
>> in which tax credits pay you sharply more in the first year that you 
>> return to work than in the second and subsequent years...
>>
>> Clive
>> -- 
> 
> This has been a Clive Martin production who talks in rules and regs, 
> especially when they dont apply, and speaks fluent manual as per the book.
> 
> 
>> my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk
> 
> See what I mean ;) 
> 
> 

but he is correct!

-- 
Robbie

On Jun 18, 7:23 pm, Robbie  wrote:
> Niteawk wrote:
> > "Clive Martin"  wrote in message
> >news:Ia$soGCFAmdGFwrz@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
> >> In message <2eUai.140179$Ug.41...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Blueyonder
> >>  writes
> >>> I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
> >>> been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
> >>> (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
> >>> says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3),
> >>> they
> >>> cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
> >>> he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
> >>> kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
> >> Up to a point.  Whilst he has children under 16 he would usually receive
> >> JSA at a hardship rate which would only be reduced by 40% of the scale
> >> rate for a single person - in effect a reduction in total benefit income
> >> of only about £24 per week.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> >> There is a criminal offence of "failure to maintain" under section 105 of
> >> the Social Security Administration Act 1992, for any IS or JSA claimant
> >> who "persistently refuses or neglects to maintain himself or any person
> >> whom he is liable to maintain" but I think the number of prosecutions
> >> under that provision is very small.
>
> > What the bollocking hell are you talking about now.
>
> >>> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn
> >>> up
> >>> every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that
> >>> not
> >>> really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they
> >>> chuck
> >>> you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.
> >> Payments of "hardship rate" JSA are still payments of JSA and technically
> >> no further claim needs to be made.
>
> >> You might want to consider whether your mate likes to boast to you that he
> >> manipulates the system with vigour but that when he is being given benefit
> >> direction by Jobcentre Plus he is actually more likely to say "yes sir, no
> >> sir, 3 bags full sir"...
>
> >>> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
> >> Yes, and it is these which help contribute to the total benefit income of
> >> c. £400 pw he will currently receive (assuming rent of say £80 pw, Council
> >> Tax of say £20 pw).
>
> >> If he took a full-time job on the minimum wage he would superficially
> >> appear to be £100 pw better off - although you have to factor in the loss
> >> of free school meals, the extra costs of travel to work, and the odd way
> >> in which tax credits pay you sharply more in the first year that you
> >> return to work than in the second and subsequent years...
>
> >> Clive
> >> --
>
> > This has been a Clive Martin production who talks in rules and regs,
> > especially when they dont apply, and speaks fluent manual as per the book.
>
> >> my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk
>
> > See what I mean ;)
>
> but he is correct!
>
> --
> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Typical ****ehawk.

That said clive failed to mention the rate of reduction could be as
low as 20% of the single persons rate.  I seem to remember that this
is applicable when one of the H/H has severe medical conditions which
would be aggravested by the loss of benefit.

It may have changed but hardship awards depended on attending a
seperate interview and filling in a statement, effectively it is still
the same claim to JSA though.

Unfortunately to effectively penalise a job dodger the DWP would have
to penalise their kids and parliament rightly baulks at that.   Kids
are often used as an excuse or shield and many learn the tricks of the
'trade' from their parents.

When I did hardship payments 6/7 yrs ago I had one customer, single 
homeless, who was in almost every mth.  No sooner had one sanction/
disallowance period ended than another would begin.  He basically
lived with a 40% reduction in his JSA most of the time for 2 years to
my knowledge.  He was a drug dealer and JSA was his legit income, I
always suspected it 'cos of the crowd he came in with.

It was confirmed though when the police picked him up, somehow they
knew the time and date of an appointment with me.  Not sure how they
knew exactly when and where to find him though I'm sure the data
protection act was followed to the letter.

Mike

Mike wrote:
> On Jun 18, 7:23 pm, Robbie  wrote:
>> Niteawk wrote:
>>> "Clive Martin"  wrote in message
>>> news:Ia$soGCFAmdGFwrz@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <2eUai.140179$Ug.41...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Blueyonder
>>>>  writes
>>>>> I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
>>>>> been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
>>>>> (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
>>>>> says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3),
>>>>> they
>>>>> cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
>>>>> he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
>>>>> kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>>>> Up to a point.  Whilst he has children under 16 he would usually receive
>>>> JSA at a hardship rate which would only be reduced by 40% of the scale
>>>> rate for a single person - in effect a reduction in total benefit income
>>>> of only about £24 per week.
>>> Wrong.
>>>> There is a criminal offence of "failure to maintain" under section 105 of
>>>> the Social Security Administration Act 1992, for any IS or JSA claimant
>>>> who "persistently refuses or neglects to maintain himself or any person
>>>> whom he is liable to maintain" but I think the number of prosecutions
>>>> under that provision is very small.
>>> What the bollocking hell are you talking about now.
>>>>> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn
>>>>> up
>>>>> every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that
>>>>> not
>>>>> really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they
>>>>> chuck
>>>>> you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.
>>>> Payments of "hardship rate" JSA are still payments of JSA and technically
>>>> no further claim needs to be made.
>>>> You might want to consider whether your mate likes to boast to you that he
>>>> manipulates the system with vigour but that when he is being given benefit
>>>> direction by Jobcentre Plus he is actually more likely to say "yes sir, no
>>>> sir, 3 bags full sir"...
>>>>> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>>>> Yes, and it is these which help contribute to the total benefit income of
>>>> c. £400 pw he will currently receive (assuming rent of say £80 pw, Council
>>>> Tax of say £20 pw).
>>>> If he took a full-time job on the minimum wage he would superficially
>>>> appear to be £100 pw better off - although you have to factor in the loss
>>>> of free school meals, the extra costs of travel to work, and the odd way
>>>> in which tax credits pay you sharply more in the first year that you
>>>> return to work than in the second and subsequent years...
>>>> Clive
>>>> --
>>> This has been a Clive Martin production who talks in rules and regs,
>>> especially when they dont apply, and speaks fluent manual as per the book.
>>>> my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk
>>> See what I mean ;)
>> but he is correct!
>>
>> --
>> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Typical ****ehawk.
> 
> That said clive failed to mention the rate of reduction could be as
> low as 20% of the single persons rate.  I seem to remember that this
> is applicable when one of the H/H has severe medical conditions which
> would be aggravested by the loss of benefit.
> 
> It may have changed but hardship awards depended on attending a
> seperate interview and filling in a statement, effectively it is still
> the same claim to JSA though.
> 
> Unfortunately to effectively penalise a job dodger the DWP would have
> to penalise their kids and parliament rightly baulks at that.   Kids
> are often used as an excuse or shield and many learn the tricks of the
> 'trade' from their parents.
> 
> When I did hardship payments 6/7 yrs ago I had one customer, single +
> homeless, who was in almost every mth.  No sooner had one sanction/
> disallowance period ended than another would begin.  He basically
> lived with a 40% reduction in his JSA most of the time for 2 years to
> my knowledge.  He was a drug dealer and JSA was his legit income, I
> always suspected it 'cos of the crowd he came in with.
> 
> It was confirmed though when the police picked him up, somehow they
> knew the time and date of an appointment with me.  Not sure how they
> knew exactly when and where to find him though I'm sure the data
> protection act was followed to the letter.
> 
> Mike
> 

many people have lots of income apart from JSA - as you said they use 
that to gain a "legitimate" income. A few have lovely cars and a 
lifestyle that I used to find impossible to equate with their declared 
income.

I remember one guy having a BMW that cost £25k and he hadn't done a days 
work from leaving schoool, and had signed on all the time - and he was 
21 at the time.

-- 
Robbie

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:5doaopF35f2nhU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mike wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 7:23 pm, Robbie  wrote:
>>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>> "Clive Martin"  wrote in message
>>>> news:Ia$soGCFAmdGFwrz@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
>>>>> In message <2eUai.140179$Ug.41...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 
>>>>> Blueyonder
>>>>>  writes
>>>>>> I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I 
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
>>>>>> (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so 
>>>>>> !, He
>>>>>> says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 
>>>>>> 3),
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even 
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with 
>>>>>> having
>>>>>> kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>>>>> Up to a point.  Whilst he has children under 16 he would usually 
>>>>> receive
>>>>> JSA at a hardship rate which would only be reduced by 40% of the scale
>>>>> rate for a single person - in effect a reduction in total benefit 
>>>>> income
>>>>> of only about £24 per week.
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>> There is a criminal offence of "failure to maintain" under section 105 
>>>>> of
>>>>> the Social Security Administration Act 1992, for any IS or JSA 
>>>>> claimant
>>>>> who "persistently refuses or neglects to maintain himself or any 
>>>>> person
>>>>> whom he is liable to maintain" but I think the number of prosecutions
>>>>> under that provision is very small.
>>>> What the bollocking hell are you talking about now.
>>>>>> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just 
>>>>>> turn
>>>>>> up
>>>>>> every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would 
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> chuck
>>>>>> you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some 
>>>>>> sort ?.
>>>>> Payments of "hardship rate" JSA are still payments of JSA and 
>>>>> technically
>>>>> no further claim needs to be made.
>>>>> You might want to consider whether your mate likes to boast to you 
>>>>> that he
>>>>> manipulates the system with vigour but that when he is being given 
>>>>> benefit
>>>>> direction by Jobcentre Plus he is actually more likely to say "yes 
>>>>> sir, no
>>>>> sir, 3 bags full sir"...
>>>>>> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>>>>> Yes, and it is these which help contribute to the total benefit income 
>>>>> of
>>>>> c. £400 pw he will currently receive (assuming rent of say £80 pw, 
>>>>> Council
>>>>> Tax of say £20 pw).
>>>>> If he took a full-time job on the minimum wage he would superficially
>>>>> appear to be £100 pw better off - although you have to factor in the 
>>>>> loss
>>>>> of free school meals, the extra costs of travel to work, and the odd 
>>>>> way
>>>>> in which tax credits pay you sharply more in the first year that you
>>>>> return to work than in the second and subsequent years...
>>>>> Clive
>>>>> --
>>>> This has been a Clive Martin production who talks in rules and regs,
>>>> especially when they dont apply, and speaks fluent manual as per the 
>>>> book.
>>>>> my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk
>>>> See what I mean ;)
>>> but he is correct!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Typical ****ehawk.
>>
>> That said clive failed to mention the rate of reduction could be as
>> low as 20% of the single persons rate.  I seem to remember that this
>> is applicable when one of the H/H has severe medical conditions which
>> would be aggravested by the loss of benefit.


What single person? the bloke has a missus and FOUR KIDS.

>>
>> It may have changed but hardship awards depended on attending a
>> seperate interview and filling in a statement, effectively it is still
>> the same claim to JSA though.
>>
>> Unfortunately to effectively penalise a job dodger the DWP would have
>> to penalise their kids and parliament rightly baulks at that.   Kids
>> are often used as an excuse or shield and many learn the tricks of the
>> 'trade' from their parents.


Job Dodgers. Is that what you call people who wont accept jobs that pay less 
than benefits.



>>
>> When I did hardship payments 6/7 yrs ago I had one customer, single +
>> homeless, who was in almost every mth.  No sooner had one sanction/
>> disallowance period ended than another would begin.  He basically
>> lived with a 40% reduction in his JSA most of the time for 2 years to
>> my knowledge.  He was a drug dealer and JSA was his legit income, I
>> always suspected it 'cos of the crowd he came in with.


Oh dear, get the violins out, a drug dealer, who is homeless! relies on JSA 
to live! I suppose he was driving a Ferrari as well.

>>
>> It was confirmed though when the police picked him up, somehow they
>> knew the time and date of an appointment with me.  Not sure how they
>> knew exactly when and where to find him though I'm sure the data
>> protection act was followed to the letter.
>>

Or he was just another penniless - homeless alcoholic scrote and the only 
place the police could be sure of finding him was at the JC, eh Columbo.

>> Mike
>>
>
> many people have lots of income apart from JSA - as you said they use that 
> to gain a "legitimate" income. A few have lovely cars and a lifestyle that 
> I used to find impossible to equate with their declared income.
>
> I remember one guy having a BMW that cost £25k and he hadn't done a days 
> work from leaving schoool, and had signed on all the time - and he was 21 
> at the time.
>

Some people have rich parents.

Niteawk wrote:
> "Robbie"  wrote in message 
> news:5doaopF35f2nhU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Mike wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 7:23 pm, Robbie  wrote:
>>>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>>> "Clive Martin"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:Ia$soGCFAmdGFwrz@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>> In message <2eUai.140179$Ug.41...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 
>>>>>> Blueyonder
>>>>>>  writes
>>>>>>> I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I 
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
>>>>>>> (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so 
>>>>>>> !, He
>>>>>>> says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 
>>>>>>> 3),
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even 
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with 
>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>> kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>>>>>> Up to a point.  Whilst he has children under 16 he would usually 
>>>>>> receive
>>>>>> JSA at a hardship rate which would only be reduced by 40% of the scale
>>>>>> rate for a single person - in effect a reduction in total benefit 
>>>>>> income
>>>>>> of only about £24 per week.
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>> There is a criminal offence of "failure to maintain" under section 105 
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the Social Security Administration Act 1992, for any IS or JSA 
>>>>>> claimant
>>>>>> who "persistently refuses or neglects to maintain himself or any 
>>>>>> person
>>>>>> whom he is liable to maintain" but I think the number of prosecutions
>>>>>> under that provision is very small.
>>>>> What the bollocking hell are you talking about now.
>>>>>>> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just 
>>>>>>> turn
>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>> every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would 
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> chuck
>>>>>>> you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some 
>>>>>>> sort ?.
>>>>>> Payments of "hardship rate" JSA are still payments of JSA and 
>>>>>> technically
>>>>>> no further claim needs to be made.
>>>>>> You might want to consider whether your mate likes to boast to you 
>>>>>> that he
>>>>>> manipulates the system with vigour but that when he is being given 
>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>> direction by Jobcentre Plus he is actually more likely to say "yes 
>>>>>> sir, no
>>>>>> sir, 3 bags full sir"...
>>>>>>> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>>>>>> Yes, and it is these which help contribute to the total benefit income 
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> c. £400 pw he will currently receive (assuming rent of say £80 pw, 
>>>>>> Council
>>>>>> Tax of say £20 pw).
>>>>>> If he took a full-time job on the minimum wage he would superficially
>>>>>> appear to be £100 pw better off - although you have to factor in the 
>>>>>> loss
>>>>>> of free school meals, the extra costs of travel to work, and the odd 
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> in which tax credits pay you sharply more in the first year that you
>>>>>> return to work than in the second and subsequent years...
>>>>>> Clive
>>>>>> --
>>>>> This has been a Clive Martin production who talks in rules and regs,
>>>>> especially when they dont apply, and speaks fluent manual as per the 
>>>>> book.
>>>>>> my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk
>>>>> See what I mean ;)
>>>> but he is correct!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Typical ****ehawk.
>>>
>>> That said clive failed to mention the rate of reduction could be as
>>> low as 20% of the single persons rate.  I seem to remember that this
>>> is applicable when one of the H/H has severe medical conditions which
>>> would be aggravested by the loss of benefit.
> 
> 
> What single person? the bloke has a missus and FOUR KIDS.
> 
>>> It may have changed but hardship awards depended on attending a
>>> seperate interview and filling in a statement, effectively it is still
>>> the same claim to JSA though.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately to effectively penalise a job dodger the DWP would have
>>> to penalise their kids and parliament rightly baulks at that.   Kids
>>> are often used as an excuse or shield and many learn the tricks of the
>>> 'trade' from their parents.
> 
> 
> Job Dodgers. Is that what you call people who wont accept jobs that pay less 
> than benefits.
> 
> 
> 
>>> When I did hardship payments 6/7 yrs ago I had one customer, single +
>>> homeless, who was in almost every mth.  No sooner had one sanction/
>>> disallowance period ended than another would begin.  He basically
>>> lived with a 40% reduction in his JSA most of the time for 2 years to
>>> my knowledge.  He was a drug dealer and JSA was his legit income, I
>>> always suspected it 'cos of the crowd he came in with.
> 
> 
> Oh dear, get the violins out, a drug dealer, who is homeless! relies on JSA 
> to live! I suppose he was driving a Ferrari as well.
> 
>>> It was confirmed though when the police picked him up, somehow they
>>> knew the time and date of an appointment with me.  Not sure how they
>>> knew exactly when and where to find him though I'm sure the data
>>> protection act was followed to the letter.
>>>
> 
> Or he was just another penniless - homeless alcoholic scrote and the only 
> place the police could be sure of finding him was at the JC, eh Columbo.
> 
>>> Mike
>>>
>> many people have lots of income apart from JSA - as you said they use that 
>> to gain a "legitimate" income. A few have lovely cars and a lifestyle that 
>> I used to find impossible to equate with their declared income.
>>
>> I remember one guy having a BMW that cost £25k and he hadn't done a days 
>> work from leaving schoool, and had signed on all the time - and he was 21 
>> at the time.
>>
> 
> Some people have rich parents. 
> 
> 

Why are you responding to me about comments that someone else made?

-- 
Robbie

On Jun 19, 3:32 pm, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >> Typical ****ehawk.
>
> >> That said clive failed to mention the rate of reduction could be as
> >> low as 20% of the single persons rate.  I seem to remember that this
> >> is applicable when one of the H/H has severe medical conditions which
> >> would be aggravested by the loss of benefit.
>
> What single person? the bloke has a missus and FOUR KIDS.

The reduction is based on the single persons rate NOT the customer's
rate, effectively the deduction is the same for a single person as a
man with a half a doz kids and two wives.  And yes that is possible,
although I only ever saw it once.
You clearly don't understand the subject so why comment.

> >> It may have changed but hardship awards depended on attending a
> >> seperate interview and filling in a statement, effectively it is still
> >> the same claim to JSA though.
>
> >> Unfortunately to effectively penalise a job dodger the DWP would have
> >> to penalise their kids and parliament rightly baulks at that.   Kids
> >> are often used as an excuse or shield and many learn the tricks of the
> >> 'trade' from their parents.
>
> Job Dodgers. Is that what you call people who wont accept jobs that pay less
> than benefits.

I think I actually invented that one, obviously not an official
description and I'm sure it would be frowned upon.  I only ever used
it in connection with those I felt were avoiding work.  And yes there
are quite alot.

> >> When I did hardship payments 6/7 yrs ago I had one customer, single 
> >> homeless, who was in almost every mth.  No sooner had one sanction/
> >> disallowance period ended than another would begin.  He basically
> >> lived with a 40% reduction in his JSA most of the time for 2 years to
> >> my knowledge.  He was a drug dealer and JSA was his legit income, I
> >> always suspected it 'cos of the crowd he came in with.
>
> Oh dear, get the violins out, a drug dealer, who is homeless! relies on JSA
> to live! I suppose he was driving a Ferrari as well.

No but he did have a set of BMW keys, could have been a pose, an old
banger or top of the range.  Don't really care, it's clear though that
he cared little about his JSA, he never moaned or disputed a decision,
he went through the motions of jobseeking and took the sanctions as
they came.

> >> It was confirmed though when the police picked him up, somehow they
> >> knew the time and date of an appointment with me.  Not sure how they
> >> knew exactly when and where to find him though I'm sure the data
> >> protection act was followed to the letter.
>
> Or he was just another penniless - homeless alcoholic scrote and the only
> place the police could be sure of finding him was at the JC, eh Columbo.

A well deserved supersonic wwhhoooooooosh, did your hear the sonic
boom *****hawk or was your head in the sand?

> > many people have lots of income apart from JSA - as you said they use that
> > to gain a "legitimate" income. A few have lovely cars and a lifestyle that
> > I used to find impossible to equate with their declared income.
>
> > I remember one guy having a BMW that cost £25k and he hadn't done a days
> > work from leaving schoool, and had signed on all the time - and he was 21
> > at the time.
>
> Some people have rich parents.

Yes they do, equally there's a lot of people who do a lot of work on
the side and live well beyond the means of someone on benefits.  One
in my local paper last week, forging manufacturing DVDs in his living
room for several years whilst on benefits.  I think I bought some at a
car boot last year, his face looked familiar.

Mike

In message , Mike 
 writes
>On Jun 18, 7:23 pm, Robbie  wrote:
>> Niteawk wrote:
>> > "Clive Martin"  wrote in message
>> >news:Ia$soGCFAmdGFwrz@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
>> >> In message <2eUai.140179$Ug.41...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Blueyonder
>> >>  writes

<SNIP>

>> >> Up to a point.  Whilst he has children under 16 he would usually receive
>> >> JSA at a hardship rate which would only be reduced by 40% of the scale
>> >> rate for a single person - in effect a reduction in total benefit income
>> >> of only about £24 per week.

<SNIP>

>That said clive failed to mention the rate of reduction could be as
>low as 20% of the single persons rate.  I seem to remember that this
>is applicable when one of the H/H has severe medical conditions which
>would be aggravested by the loss of benefit.

See: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/dmg/pdf/ch35.pdf  (although 
there are quite a lot of rules and regs referred to, which may trouble 
some).

The 20% is for those where a member of the family is "pregnant or 
seriously ill" but the 40% reduction deems to be the default.  I usually 
say "usually"...

>It may have changed but hardship awards depended on attending a
>seperate interview and filling in a statement, effectively it is still
>the same claim to JSA though.

Yes, it's not technically a fresh claim but there seems to be the faff 
normally associated with making a claim - interview, a form, etc.

Clive
-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

In message , Robbie 
 writes
>Clive Martin wrote:

<SNIP>

>>  There is a criminal offence of "failure to maintain" under section 
>>105  of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, for any IS or JSA 
>>claimant who "persistently refuses or neglects to maintain himself or 
>>any person whom he is liable to maintain" but I think the number of 
>>prosecutions under that provision is very small.
>
>I don't think there has been a prosecution since 1979, when the same 
>wording was in the old Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. That was 
>carried to the Social Security Act 1986 and then on to the 
>administrative consolidation act in 1992.
>
>9 people were prosecuted in 1979, two were jailed - then it seems to 
>have stopped.
>
>The original offence dates back to 1381 and the wording is remarkably 
>similar as it was back then (albeit in less of the style of ye olde 
>english)!

Interesting.  I couldn't source any figures on it when I searched.  I've 
known of it as a theoretical possibility but don't recall ever having 
come across it in practice.

Clive

-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

Clive Martin wrote:
> In message , Robbie 
>  writes
>> Clive Martin wrote:
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
>>>  There is a criminal offence of "failure to maintain" under section 
>>> 105  of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, for any IS or 
>>> JSA claimant who "persistently refuses or neglects to maintain 
>>> himself or any person whom he is liable to maintain" but I think the 
>>> number of prosecutions under that provision is very small.
>>
>> I don't think there has been a prosecution since 1979, when the same 
>> wording was in the old Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. That was 
>> carried to the Social Security Act 1986 and then on to the 
>> administrative consolidation act in 1992.
>>
>> 9 people were prosecuted in 1979, two were jailed - then it seems to 
>> have stopped.
>>
>> The original offence dates back to 1381 and the wording is remarkably 
>> similar as it was back then (albeit in less of the style of ye olde 
>> english)!
> 
> Interesting.  I couldn't source any figures on it when I searched.  I've 
> known of it as a theoretical possibility but don't recall ever having 
> come across it in practice.
> 
> Clive
> 

I have an old Mesher book, from 1991 and one of his comments is about 
the sanction last being applied in 1979.

It may have been applied since then, of course, but it's highly unlikely.

The sanction in 1381 by the way was to initially brand the person rather 
than just jail them!

-- 
Robbie

On Jun 20, 12:26 am, Clive Martin  wrote:

>
> <SNIP>
>
> >That said clive failed to mention the rate of reduction could be as
> >low as 20% of the single persons rate.  I seem to remember that this
> >is applicable when one of the H/H has severe medical conditions which
> >would be aggravested by the loss of benefit.
>
> See:http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/dmg/pdf/ch35.pdf (although
> there are quite a lot of rules and regs referred to, which may trouble
> some).

Like whom?

> The 20% is for those where a member of the family is "pregnant or
> seriously ill" but the 40% reduction deems to be the default.  I usually
> say "usually"...

I'm sure 40% is the default, there has to be a reason to justify the
20%, I only remember medical grounds TBH including pregnancy.

FYI Nitenite - thats based on the single person's rate not the
customers own rate.  This means someone who gets a relatively low rate
of JSA 'cos of other income/savings might not qualify for hardship
payments at all as income exceeds. I don't think I ever came across
this though.

Mike

"Blueyonder"  wrote in message 
news:2eUai.140179$Ug.41929@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have 
>been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years 
>(Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He 
>says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), they 
>cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then 
>he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having 
>kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>
> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn 
> up every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can 
> that not really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would 
> they chuck you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of 
> some sort ?.

They cant really touch you if you have kids to feed, although he could face 
some petty sanction for refusing a job, its not really worth bothering 
about.
Anyway his missus could claim if he was knocked off the dole.

>
> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> Danny
>

The main problem is the cost of living, people cant afford to live on the 
minimum wage. The dole pays more than the NMW, then there is job security to 
consider, most crap jobs dont last 5 minutes.
Factor in all the hassle you would get in a crap job, the costs of getting 
to work, the amount of fucking about having to claim HB + CTB and child care 
allowance.
He could end up claiming more if he got a minimum wage job but he would be 
no better off, in fact it is more likely that he would end up worse off.

Anyway you get the picture, it would cost the tax payer more if he got a job 
as he would still be on benefits, factor in child care allowance and there 
you have it.
We have far too many refugees and immigrants looking for work as it is, the 
current UK population does not need to work as long as we have migrants to 
do it for us.

Good man T. Blair.

"Blueyonder"  wrote in message
news:2eUai.140179$Ug.41929@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
> been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
> (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
> says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), they
> cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
> he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
> kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>
> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn up
> every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that not
> really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they chuck
> you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.
>
> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.

Pretty much. With 4 kids he'd have to earn a considerable amount to be significantly
better off than on the dole (probably over £30k).  So there's no incentive.  Sums up
the problem with the policies of this government.

--
Andy

On Jun 10, 3:51 pm, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
> I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
> been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
> (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
> says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), they
> cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
> he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
> kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>
> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn up
> every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that not
> really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they chuck
> you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.
>
> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> Danny

Hardsip payments can be made to any JSA claimant whose benefit is
sanctioned or disallowed for refusing a job, training etc.  With him
having kids, and I assume no other income save CHB & TC, he would
qualify for hardship payments from day one.  IIRC the reduction would
be as little as 20% of the couple rate personal allowance so less than
£20 pw.

Where there no kids and neither he nor ptr had and health probs he
would have to wait 2 weeks to qualify for hardship payts.

Mike

On Jun 10, 8:16 pm, "Andy Pandy" <spam8ti...@wonderful.spam.invalid>
wrote:
> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>
> news:2eUai.140179$Ug.41929@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> > I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
> > been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
> > (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
> > says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), they
> > cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
> > he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
> > kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>
> > Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn up
> > every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that not
> > really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they chuck
> > you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.
>
> > He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>
> Pretty much. With 4 kids he'd have to earn a considerable amount to be significantly
> better off than on the dole (probably over £30k).  So there's no incentive.  Sums up
> the problem with the policies of this government.
>
> --
> Andy

Sums up the problem with his birth control as well.  I have 2 kids and
am sticking at that, I can afford them without having to rely on TC.
I've seen it hundreds of times, go on the dole with one or two sprogs,
five years later three or four and no job they can get will ever pay
enough to cover the benefits, free school meals etc.  TC go some way
to adressing the problem but the lazy scroats are all to often happy
to stay on benefits, by the time the kids are old enough they have
been on the rock'n'roll for a dozen years and unemployable.

I knew a chap who after 6 years unemployed (not on benefits) kept
having 'panic attacks' when he started a job, his wife was well
connected and got him nearly a dozen jobs over three years.  Money was
a side issue.  None lasted a week and the record was an hour, therapy
did no good, he was happy as larry at home doing next to nothing,
mention work and he went all pale.

She got fed up chucked him out and last I heard he was happy in a
bedsit on JSA.

Mike

Hi,
Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have been 
possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on 
benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it though, 
I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse everything 
they offered, which can't be easy.

I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not get 
Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment cover it 
all ?.

Regards,

Danny


"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:1181504552.591375.254910@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 10, 3:51 pm, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
> I know this is a stupid question, and I am sorry for asking it, but I have
> been told by a Mate who has been Claiming JSA for the Last 10 Years
> (Atleast), that he has never worked and has no intention of doing so !, He
> says that for as long as he has kids (He has 4 and the youngest is 3), 
> they
> cannot stop his benefit, he did say that they can reduce it, but even then
> he is still better off !, he calls it a Hard Ship payment, and with having
> kids he automatically gets it, they seem to hate it, but its true ?.
>
> Is this really true ?, could some one who did not want to work just turn 
> up
> every two weeks and refuse a job and still be getting JSA ?, or can that 
> not
> really happen, do having kids protect you in that way ?, or would they 
> chuck
> you off JSA and you would have to apply for a DSS benefit of some sort ?.
>
> He also Claims HB and CTB and gets Free school meals etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> Danny

Hardsip payments can be made to any JSA claimant whose benefit is
sanctioned or disallowed for refusing a job, training etc.  With him
having kids, and I assume no other income save CHB & TC, he would
qualify for hardship payments from day one.  IIRC the reduction would
be as little as 20% of the couple rate personal allowance so less than
£20 pw.

Where there no kids and neither he nor ptr had and health probs he
would have to wait 2 weeks to qualify for hardship payts.

Mike

"Blueyonder"  wrote in message 
news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi,
> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have been 
> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on 
> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it 
> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse 
> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>
> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not 
> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment 
> cover it all ?.
>

They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was suspended 
he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:50:11 +0100, "Niteawk" 
wrote:

>
>"Blueyonder"  wrote in message 
>news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Hi,
>> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have been 
>> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on 
>> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it 
>> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse 
>> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>>
>> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not 
>> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment 
>> cover it all ?.
>>
>
>They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was suspended 
>he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.
>

Until hios children are how old?
Can't they make you go out to work when they're 11?
-- 
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

Hi,
Thanks for that, did not think it would be that easy !, I suppose if I had 4 
kids I could pack my Job in and start to Sign On, although I think I would 
get a bit of hassle at the interview if I told them I did not want to work 
!, or I suppose the way round it is to say you do want a Job etc just to get 
you registered and then after that just tell them that no job is suitable, 
although I seem to remember that you could not refuse a job just beacuase it 
was low paid ?, mind you its the hassle every week or whatever that would 
put me off !.

Danny

"Niteawk"  wrote in message 
news:If-dneeNJMdZkfDbRVnygAA@bt.com...
>
> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message 
> news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Hi,
>> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have been 
>> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on 
>> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it 
>> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse 
>> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>>
>> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not 
>> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment 
>> cover it all ?.
>>
>
> They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was 
> suspended he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.
>
>

"Mogga"  wrote in message 
news:ngeq631ria9rr08qr0epslv1teghrhbd02@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:50:11 +0100, "Niteawk" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>>news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> Hi,
>>> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have 
>>> been
>>> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on
>>> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it
>>> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse
>>> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>>>
>>> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not
>>> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment
>>> cover it all ?.
>>>
>>
>>They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was 
>>suspended
>>he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.
>>
>
> Until hios children are how old?
> Can't they make you go out to work when they're 11?

They cant make people go out to work, the best they can do is force people 
to apply for crap jobs and if they refuse, then they can apply for sanction.
Forcing people in this way to apply for jobs wastes the employers time, for 
eg having applied for just about every job there is or was going, I end up 
applying for jobs that I havent got cat in hells chance of getting just to 
keep the JC happy.

I applied for a job recently under their rules, only because I had to. I got 
a nice letter back telling me I was not the right type of person they were 
looking for, adding that loads of people applied but none were suitable (all 
from the JC no doubt) and that they will be readvertising the job, the 
letter was their way of saying please do not apply for this job again.

On Jun 11, 1:08 pm, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for that, did not think it would be that easy !, I suppose if I had 4
> kids I could pack my Job in and start to Sign On, although I think I would
> get a bit of hassle at the interview if I told them I did not want to work
> !, or I suppose the way round it is to say you do want a Job etc just to get
> you registered and then after that just tell them that no job is suitable,
> although I seem to remember that you could not refuse a job just beacuase it
> was low paid ?, mind you its the hassle every week or whatever that would
> put me off !.
>
> Danny
>
> "Niteawk"  wrote in message
>
> news:If-dneeNJMdZkfDbRVnygAA@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
> >news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Hi,
> >> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have been
> >> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on
> >> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it
> >> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse
> >> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>
> >> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not
> >> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment
> >> cover it all ?.
>
> > They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was
> > suspended he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I doubt the JC could hassle me any more than I already get at work
however I don't think I could live on the dole.  The novelty of being
at home with the kids and getting all my odd jobs done would wear off
after a year or so ....

Mike

Niteawk wrote:
> "Mogga"  wrote in message 
> news:ngeq631ria9rr08qr0epslv1teghrhbd02@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:50:11 +0100, "Niteawk" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>>> news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have 
>>>> been
>>>> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people on
>>>> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it
>>>> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just refuse
>>>> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>>>>
>>>> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would not
>>>> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment
>>>> cover it all ?.
>>>>
>>> They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was 
>>> suspended
>>> he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.
>>>
>> Until hios children are how old?
>> Can't they make you go out to work when they're 11?
> 
> They cant make people go out to work, the best they can do is force people 
> to apply for crap jobs and if they refuse, then they can apply for sanction.
> Forcing people in this way to apply for jobs wastes the employers time, for 
> eg having applied for just about every job there is or was going, I end up 
> applying for jobs that I havent got cat in hells chance of getting just to 
> keep the JC happy.
> 
> I applied for a job recently under their rules, only because I had to. I got 
> a nice letter back telling me I was not the right type of person they were 
> looking for, adding that loads of people applied but none were suitable (all 
> from the JC no doubt) and that they will be readvertising the job, the 
> letter was their way of saying please do not apply for this job again.
> 
> 
> 

What would you do if you were offerd a job?

-- 
Robbie

Was there not something on the News a few weeks back with John Hutton saying 
that they are going to Get though on Benefit Claimants, or the Long Term 
Unemployed, so surely this would put a end to this Just Claiming Benefit 
forever ?.

Danny.

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:5d6q5tF2qd78tU2@mid.individual.net...
> Niteawk wrote:
>> "Mogga"  wrote in message 
>> news:ngeq631ria9rr08qr0epslv1teghrhbd02@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:50:11 +0100, "Niteawk" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>>>> news:hF7bi.134509$4a.41958@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Well thanks for all that, I must admit I did not think it would have 
>>>>> been
>>>>> possible as they are always going on about making it tough for people 
>>>>> on
>>>>> benefits and getting them back to work !, don't think I could do it
>>>>> though, I think you would need the correct atidude to really just 
>>>>> refuse
>>>>> everything they offered, which can't be easy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did think though that if you got suspended from Benefit you would 
>>>>> not
>>>>> get Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit, or does a Hardship Payment
>>>>> cover it all ?.
>>>>>
>>>> They dont stop HB CTB, that stays as it is. As explained if he was 
>>>> suspended
>>>> he could lose about 20% of JSA. Thats all.
>>>>
>>> Until hios children are how old?
>>> Can't they make you go out to work when they're 11?
>>
>> They cant make people go out to work, the best they can do is force 
>> people to apply for crap jobs and if they refuse, then they can apply for 
>> sanction.
>> Forcing people in this way to apply for jobs wastes the employers time, 
>> for eg having applied for just about every job there is or was going, I 
>> end up applying for jobs that I havent got cat in hells chance of getting 
>> just to keep the JC happy.
>>
>> I applied for a job recently under their rules, only because I had to. I 
>> got a nice letter back telling me I was not the right type of person they 
>> were looking for, adding that loads of people applied but none were 
>> suitable (all from the JC no doubt) and that they will be readvertising 
>> the job, the letter was their way of saying please do not apply for this 
>> job again.
>>
>>
>>
>
> What would you do if you were offerd a job?
>
> -- 
> Robbie

"Blueyonder"  wrote in message
news:dBWbi.143342$4a.56952@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Was there not something on