Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if I am 
right !, can someone please shed some light on this:

Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets JSA of 
£92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
of £52 a week.

He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme which he is 
going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.

Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA so 
cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
£152 a week + £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to see how he 
will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or can 
other items be included for Hardship ?.

I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before CTC, or 
can they suspend CTC ?.

Danny

"Blueyonder"  wrote in message 
news:CHfIi.130501$xp6.76594@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if I am 
> right !, can someone please shed some light on this:
>
> Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets JSA of 
> £92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
> of £52 a week.
>
> He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme which he 
> is going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.
>
> Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA so 
> cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
> £152 a week + £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to see how 
> he will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
> he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or can 
> other items be included for Hardship ?.
>
> I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before CTC, 
> or can they suspend CTC ?.
>
> Danny
>
>

Why would he want to refuse a place on a Training scheme???

Because he does not want to work !! (As far as I can tell)

"Syberian"  wrote in message 
news:GGzIi.7877$aN2.7176@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message 
> news:CHfIi.130501$xp6.76594@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if I am 
>> right !, can someone please shed some light on this:
>>
>> Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets JSA of 
>> £92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
>> of £52 a week.
>>
>> He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme which he 
>> is going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.
>>
>> Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA so 
>> cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
>> £152 a week + £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to see how 
>> he will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
>> he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or can 
>> other items be included for Hardship ?.
>>
>> I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before CTC, 
>> or can they suspend CTC ?.
>>
>> Danny
>>
>>
>
> Why would he want to refuse a place on a Training scheme???

On 21 Sep, 09:33, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
> Because he does not want to work !! (As far as I can tell)
>
> "Syberian"  wrote in message
>
> news:GGzIi.7877$aN2.7176@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
> >news:CHfIi.130501$xp6.76594@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if I am
> >> right !, can someone please shed some light on this:
>
> >> Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets JSA of
> >> £92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
> >> of £52 a week.
>
> >> He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme which he
> >> is going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.
>
> >> Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA so
> >> cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
> >> £152 a week  £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to see how
> >> he will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
> >> he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or can
> >> other items be included for Hardship ?.
>
> >> I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before CTC,
> >> or can they suspend CTC ?.
>
> >> Danny
>
> > Why would he want to refuse a place on a Training scheme???- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Isn't a training scheme part of jobseekers agreements these days?
Or are they solely optional?

Martin  <><

mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 09:33, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
>> Because he does not want to work !! (As far as I can tell)
>>
>> "Syberian"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:GGzIi.7877$aN2.7176@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>>> news:CHfIi.130501$xp6.76594@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if I am
>>>> right !, can someone please shed some light on this:
>>>> Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets JSA of
>>>> £92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
>>>> of £52 a week.
>>>> He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme which he
>>>> is going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.
>>>> Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA so
>>>> cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
>>>> £152 a week + £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to see how
>>>> he will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
>>>> he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or can
>>>> other items be included for Hardship ?.
>>>> I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before CTC,
>>>> or can they suspend CTC ?.
>>>> Danny
>>> Why would he want to refuse a place on a Training scheme???- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Isn't a training scheme part of jobseekers agreements these days?
> Or are they solely optional?
> 
> Martin  <><
> 

Not optional, but the bloke has kids so he's happy to just take a 
sanction, by the sounds of it. His JSA is the smallest part of his 
weekly income, the rest is made up of Child Tax Credits and Child 
Benefit, which he knows won't be touched. And his JSA will only be hit 
by 40% for a specified period.

Effectively, he can refuse a job or training knowing that he won't be 
that much worse off. In the past, the old DHSS used to jail people for 
this, but that hasn't happened for years. And in the even older past, 
the claimant used to be forced to go into residential accommodation to 
be "rehabilitated" back into the ways of work, or if he refused to do 
this, he was, again, jailed. It's the part of the legislation that used 
to cover someone who persistently failed to maintain himself or others 
and as a result benefit was paid. It didn't just cover maintenance now 
covered by the CSA but also maintenance in the sense of a spouse or 
children living with him.

The legislation has no real teeth these days.

-- 
Robbie

I Thought they could suspend ALL of his JSA as the CTC and CB would give him 
enough to live on ?.

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:5lhgb6F7rcj9U1@mid.individual.net...
> mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On 21 Sep, 09:33, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
>>> Because he does not want to work !! (As far as I can tell)
>>>
>>> "Syberian"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:GGzIi.7877$aN2.7176@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>>>> news:CHfIi.130501$xp6.76594@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>> Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if I 
>>>>> am
>>>>> right !, can someone please shed some light on this:
>>>>> Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets JSA 
>>>>> of
>>>>> £92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
>>>>> of £52 a week.
>>>>> He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme which 
>>>>> he
>>>>> is going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.
>>>>> Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA so
>>>>> cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
>>>>> £152 a week + £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to see 
>>>>> how
>>>>> he will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
>>>>> he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or 
>>>>> can
>>>>> other items be included for Hardship ?.
>>>>> I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before 
>>>>> CTC,
>>>>> or can they suspend CTC ?.
>>>>> Danny
>>>> Why would he want to refuse a place on a Training scheme???- Hide 
>>>> quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Isn't a training scheme part of jobseekers agreements these days?
>> Or are they solely optional?
>>
>> Martin  <><
>>
>
> Not optional, but the bloke has kids so he's happy to just take a 
> sanction, by the sounds of it. His JSA is the smallest part of his weekly 
> income, the rest is made up of Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit, which 
> he knows won't be touched. And his JSA will only be hit by 40% for a 
> specified period.
>
> Effectively, he can refuse a job or training knowing that he won't be that 
> much worse off. In the past, the old DHSS used to jail people for this, 
> but that hasn't happened for years. And in the even older past, the 
> claimant used to be forced to go into residential accommodation to be 
> "rehabilitated" back into the ways of work, or if he refused to do this, 
> he was, again, jailed. It's the part of the legislation that used to cover 
> someone who persistently failed to maintain himself or others and as a 
> result benefit was paid. It didn't just cover maintenance now covered by 
> the CSA but also maintenance in the sense of a spouse or children living 
> with him.
>
> The legislation has no real teeth these days.
>
> -- 
> Robbie

Blueyonder wrote:
> I Thought they could suspend ALL of his JSA as the CTC and CB would give him 
> enough to live on ?.
> 
> "Robbie"  wrote in message 
> news:5lhgb6F7rcj9U1@mid.individual.net...
>> mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On 21 Sep, 09:33, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
>>>> Because he does not want to work !! (As far as I can tell)
>>>>
>>>> "Syberian"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:GGzIi.7877$aN2.7176@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:CHfIi.130501$xp6.76594@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>> Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if I 
>>>>>> am
>>>>>> right !, can someone please shed some light on this:
>>>>>> Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets JSA 
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> £92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
>>>>>> of £52 a week.
>>>>>> He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme which 
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> is going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.
>>>>>> Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA so
>>>>>> cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
>>>>>> £152 a week + £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to see 
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> he will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
>>>>>> he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or 
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> other items be included for Hardship ?.
>>>>>> I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before 
>>>>>> CTC,
>>>>>> or can they suspend CTC ?.
>>>>>> Danny
>>>>> Why would he want to refuse a place on a Training scheme???- Hide 
>>>>> quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Isn't a training scheme part of jobseekers agreements these days?
>>> Or are they solely optional?
>>>
>>> Martin  <><
>>>
>> Not optional, but the bloke has kids so he's happy to just take a 
>> sanction, by the sounds of it. His JSA is the smallest part of his weekly 
>> income, the rest is made up of Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit, which 
>> he knows won't be touched. And his JSA will only be hit by 40% for a 
>> specified period.
>>
>> Effectively, he can refuse a job or training knowing that he won't be that 
>> much worse off. In the past, the old DHSS used to jail people for this, 
>> but that hasn't happened for years. And in the even older past, the 
>> claimant used to be forced to go into residential accommodation to be 
>> "rehabilitated" back into the ways of work, or if he refused to do this, 
>> he was, again, jailed. It's the part of the legislation that used to cover 
>> someone who persistently failed to maintain himself or others and as a 
>> result benefit was paid. It didn't just cover maintenance now covered by 
>> the CSA but also maintenance in the sense of a spouse or children living 
>> with him.
>>
>> The legislation has no real teeth these days.
>>
>> -- 
>> Robbie 
> 
> 

they can only suspend so much if he has a child, or at least that is my 
understanding, regardless of how the child increases are paid (ie CTC 
rather than part of the benefit). Also, does he have a partner? If so, 
there may be some benefit being paid because of her.

-- 
Robbie

Hi, Yes he has a Wife, I thought they were going to make work pay !.

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:5li2b2F7t9imU1@mid.individual.net...
> Blueyonder wrote:
>> I Thought they could suspend ALL of his JSA as the CTC and CB would give 
>> him enough to live on ?.
>>
>> "Robbie"  wrote in message 
>> news:5lhgb6F7rcj9U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 21 Sep, 09:33, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
>>>>> Because he does not want to work !! (As far as I can tell)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Syberian"  wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:GGzIi.7877$aN2.7176@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:CHfIi.130501$xp6.76594@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>> Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if 
>>>>>>> I am
>>>>>>> right !, can someone please shed some light on this:
>>>>>>> Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets 
>>>>>>> JSA of
>>>>>>> £92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
>>>>>>> of £52 a week.
>>>>>>> He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme 
>>>>>>> which he
>>>>>>> is going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.
>>>>>>> Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA 
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
>>>>>>> £152 a week + £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to 
>>>>>>> see how
>>>>>>> he will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
>>>>>>> he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or 
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> other items be included for Hardship ?.
>>>>>>> I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before 
>>>>>>> CTC,
>>>>>>> or can they suspend CTC ?.
>>>>>>> Danny
>>>>>> Why would he want to refuse a place on a Training scheme???- Hide 
>>>>>> quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Isn't a training scheme part of jobseekers agreements these days?
>>>> Or are they solely optional?
>>>>
>>>> Martin  <><
>>>>
>>> Not optional, but the bloke has kids so he's happy to just take a 
>>> sanction, by the sounds of it. His JSA is the smallest part of his 
>>> weekly income, the rest is made up of Child Tax Credits and Child 
>>> Benefit, which he knows won't be touched. And his JSA will only be hit 
>>> by 40% for a specified period.
>>>
>>> Effectively, he can refuse a job or training knowing that he won't be 
>>> that much worse off. In the past, the old DHSS used to jail people for 
>>> this, but that hasn't happened for years. And in the even older past, 
>>> the claimant used to be forced to go into residential accommodation to 
>>> be "rehabilitated" back into the ways of work, or if he refused to do 
>>> this, he was, again, jailed. It's the part of the legislation that used 
>>> to cover someone who persistently failed to maintain himself or others 
>>> and as a result benefit was paid. It didn't just cover maintenance now 
>>> covered by the CSA but also maintenance in the sense of a spouse or 
>>> children living with him.
>>>
>>> The legislation has no real teeth these days.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Robbie
>>
>>
>
> they can only suspend so much if he has a child, or at least that is my 
> understanding, regardless of how the child increases are paid (ie CTC 
> rather than part of the benefit). Also, does he have a partner? If so, 
> there may be some benefit being paid because of her.
>
> -- 
> Robbie

On 21 Sep, 10:14, Robbie  wrote:
> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On 21 Sep, 09:33, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
> >> Because he does not want to work !! (As far as I can tell)
>
> >> "Syberian"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:GGzIi.7877$aN2.7176@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> >>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
> >>>news:CHfIi.130501$xp6.76594@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>> Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if I am
> >>>> right !, can someone please shed some light on this:
> >>>> Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets JSA of
> >>>> £92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
> >>>> of £52 a week.
> >>>> He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme which he
> >>>> is going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.
> >>>> Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA so
> >>>> cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
> >>>> £152 a week  £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to see how
> >>>> he will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
> >>>> he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or can
> >>>> other items be included for Hardship ?.
> >>>> I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before CTC,
> >>>> or can they suspend CTC ?.
> >>>> Danny
> >>> Why would he want to refuse a place on a Training scheme???- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Isn't a training scheme part of jobseekers agreements these days?
> > Or are they solely optional?
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> Not optional, but the bloke has kids so he's happy to just take a
> sanction, by the sounds of it. His JSA is the smallest part of his
> weekly income, the rest is made up of Child Tax Credits and Child
> Benefit, which he knows won't be touched. And his JSA will only be hit
> by 40% for a specified period.
>
> Effectively, he can refuse a job or training knowing that he won't be
> that much worse off. In the past, the old DHSS used to jail people for
> this, but that hasn't happened for years. And in the even older past,
> the claimant used to be forced to go into residential accommodation to
> be "rehabilitated" back into the ways of work, or if he refused to do
> this, he was, again, jailed. It's the part of the legislation that used
> to cover someone who persistently failed to maintain himself or others
> and as a result benefit was paid. It didn't just cover maintenance now
> covered by the CSA but also maintenance in the sense of a spouse or
> children living with him.
>
> The legislation has no real teeth these days.
>
> --
> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So basically no incentive to do training courses or get a job these
days.
And people wonder how immigrants manage to get work.....

Martin  <><

mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 10:14, Robbie  wrote:
>> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On 21 Sep, 09:33, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
>>>> Because he does not want to work !! (As far as I can tell)
>>>> "Syberian"  wrote in message
>>>> news:GGzIi.7877$aN2.7176@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:CHfIi.130501$xp6.76594@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>> Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if I am
>>>>>> right !, can someone please shed some light on this:
>>>>>> Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets JSA of
>>>>>> £92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
>>>>>> of £52 a week.
>>>>>> He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme which he
>>>>>> is going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.
>>>>>> Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA so
>>>>>> cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
>>>>>> £152 a week + £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to see how
>>>>>> he will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
>>>>>> he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or can
>>>>>> other items be included for Hardship ?.
>>>>>> I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before CTC,
>>>>>> or can they suspend CTC ?.
>>>>>> Danny
>>>>> Why would he want to refuse a place on a Training scheme???- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Isn't a training scheme part of jobseekers agreements these days?
>>> Or are they solely optional?
>>> Martin  <><
>> Not optional, but the bloke has kids so he's happy to just take a
>> sanction, by the sounds of it. His JSA is the smallest part of his
>> weekly income, the rest is made up of Child Tax Credits and Child
>> Benefit, which he knows won't be touched. And his JSA will only be hit
>> by 40% for a specified period.
>>
>> Effectively, he can refuse a job or training knowing that he won't be
>> that much worse off. In the past, the old DHSS used to jail people for
>> this, but that hasn't happened for years. And in the even older past,
>> the claimant used to be forced to go into residential accommodation to
>> be "rehabilitated" back into the ways of work, or if he refused to do
>> this, he was, again, jailed. It's the part of the legislation that used
>> to cover someone who persistently failed to maintain himself or others
>> and as a result benefit was paid. It didn't just cover maintenance now
>> covered by the CSA but also maintenance in the sense of a spouse or
>> children living with him.
>>
>> The legislation has no real teeth these days.
>>
>> --
>> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> So basically no incentive to do training courses or get a job these
> days.
> And people wonder how immigrants manage to get work.....
> 
> Martin  <><
> 

of course, statistically, parents as lazy as this end up with their 
teenage daughters pregnant and their teenage sons being involved in all 
kinds of trouble and sometimes flitting between benefits and prison and 
so the "useless" gene is passed on down the line.

Effectively, the father and mother outlined in the original posts are 
role models of the worst kind. The comeuppance will be when the children 
all reach school leaving age and there's just the two scrounging adults 
left - they'll both have to sign on and this time they really can be hit 
by sanctions of no benefit at all. By then Incapacity Benefit will have 
been abolished and its replacement won't be an option for them to fall 
back on.

-- 
Robbie

It worse than that !, he is currently 44, his youngest is 3, so assuming she 
stayed school until 18 say, that would still give him 15 years to play about 
this way !, even then he would be 59 !, and would be on income support at 60 
!, and as I understand he would be quite happy to have more, so somehow I 
dont think sanctions are going to have much effect at 60 or 65 !, makes you 
mad I know but the system really needs to be changed.

Blueyonder wrote:
> It worse than that !, he is currently 44, his youngest is 3, so assuming she 
> stayed school until 18 say, that would still give him 15 years to play about 
> this way !, even then he would be 59 !, and would be on income support at 60 
> !, and as I understand he would be quite happy to have more, so somehow I 
> dont think sanctions are going to have much effect at 60 or 65 !, makes you 
> mad I know but the system really needs to be changed.
> 
> 

so what does he do? Sit around all day watching TV, or sit in the pub 
all day? Or has he got a job on the side?

-- 
Robbie

He came to me for a bit of advice, I have known him for years on and off, he 
does nothing as far as I know, seems to be quite happy with that way of 
life, seems quite happy to tell you how he does not pay Council Tax or Rent, 
Kids get Free Meals and Milk, he gets Free Prescriptions etc, I must admit I 
looked into it because I felt he was having me on, and that it would be 
Impossible to get or do what he was claiming, yet the more I see the more I 
believe he is right and I am wrong, yet I have worked since leaving school 
and he seems to earn as much as me now, which as far as I am I concerned is 
Wrong !, I believe we need to change things, the government allways seems to 
talk tough about getting the unemployed back to work, yet for some reason he 
gets round it, and I still can't really believe just because you have kids 
they 'Protect' you, surely if he refused a Job Offer or Training Course you 
could not claim JSA as thats what is supposed to be about ?.

On 22 Sep, 09:38, Robbie  wrote:
> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On 21 Sep, 10:14, Robbie  wrote:
> >> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On 21 Sep, 09:33, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
> >>>> Because he does not want to work !! (As far as I can tell)
> >>>> "Syberian"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:GGzIi.7877$aN2.7176@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> >>>>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
> >>>>>news:CHfIi.130501$xp6.76594@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>>>> Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if I am
> >>>>>> right !, can someone please shed some light on this:
> >>>>>> Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets JSA of
> >>>>>> £92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
> >>>>>> of £52 a week.
> >>>>>> He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme which he
> >>>>>> is going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.
> >>>>>> Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA so
> >>>>>> cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
> >>>>>> £152 a week  £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to see how
> >>>>>> he will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
> >>>>>> he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or can
> >>>>>> other items be included for Hardship ?.
> >>>>>> I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before CTC,
> >>>>>> or can they suspend CTC ?.
> >>>>>> Danny
> >>>>> Why would he want to refuse a place on a Training scheme???- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Isn't a training scheme part of jobseekers agreements these days?
> >>> Or are they solely optional?
> >>> Martin  <><
> >> Not optional, but the bloke has kids so he's happy to just take a
> >> sanction, by the sounds of it. His JSA is the smallest part of his
> >> weekly income, the rest is made up of Child Tax Credits and Child
> >> Benefit, which he knows won't be touched. And his JSA will only be hit
> >> by 40% for a specified period.
>
> >> Effectively, he can refuse a job or training knowing that he won't be
> >> that much worse off. In the past, the old DHSS used to jail people for
> >> this, but that hasn't happened for years. And in the even older past,
> >> the claimant used to be forced to go into residential accommodation to
> >> be "rehabilitated" back into the ways of work, or if he refused to do
> >> this, he was, again, jailed. It's the part of the legislation that used
> >> to cover someone who persistently failed to maintain himself or others
> >> and as a result benefit was paid. It didn't just cover maintenance now
> >> covered by the CSA but also maintenance in the sense of a spouse or
> >> children living with him.
>
> >> The legislation has no real teeth these days.
>
> >> --
> >> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So basically no incentive to do training courses or get a job these
> > days.
> > And people wonder how immigrants manage to get work.....
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> of course, statistically, parents as lazy as this end up with their
> teenage daughters pregnant and their teenage sons being involved in all
> kinds of trouble and sometimes flitting between benefits and prison and
> so the "useless" gene is passed on down the line.
>
> Effectively, the father and mother outlined in the original posts are
> role models of the worst kind. The comeuppance will be when the children
> all reach school leaving age and there's just the two scrounging adults
> left - they'll both have to sign on and this time they really can be hit
> by sanctions of no benefit at all. By then Incapacity Benefit will have
> been abolished and its replacement won't be an option for them to fall
> back on.
>
> --
> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ummm....while I was growing up, at times both my parents were on
benefits. Once for 5 years.
Ended up with my dad getting a job paying a little over £2 an hour, 13
years ago (minimum wage at least makes some things better since then).


Now both are on benefits again, though all 4 of us children have grown
up.
Of the 4 of us, all 4 have jobs, all 4 work damn hard. Only 1 of us
doesn't have 2 jobs.

A period of time on benefits does not automatically mean kids grow up
wanting to claim benefits.
Neither of course does growing up with 2 parents working force kids to
get pregnant and claim benefits to get out of work.....  :)

Martin  <><

On 22 Sep, 14:47, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
> He came to me for a bit of advice, I have known him for years on and off, he
> does nothing as far as I know, seems to be quite happy with that way of
> life, seems quite happy to tell you how he does not pay Council Tax or Rent,
> Kids get Free Meals and Milk, he gets Free Prescriptions etc, I must admit I
> looked into it because I felt he was having me on, and that it would be
> Impossible to get or do what he was claiming, yet the more I see the more I
> believe he is right and I am wrong, yet I have worked since leaving school
> and he seems to earn as much as me now, which as far as I am I concerned is
> Wrong !, I believe we need to change things, the government allways seems to
> talk tough about getting the unemployed back to work, yet for some reason he
> gets round it, and I still can't really believe just because you have kids
> they 'Protect' you, surely if he refused a Job Offer or Training Course you
> could not claim JSA as thats what is supposed to be about ?.

Though benefit income gives a basic level of living, I prefer working
and having some influence on my lifestyle.
New car, running of a car, moving house, getting large house loan,
paying bills etc.
I've worked, been on benefit, now working again. While free time is
nice, having an income that I get to decide is better.

Whenever the government talk about getting people back to work, they
have to leave loopholes (big ones) for those who cannot work.
If they said that people with a child under 1 year old couldn't be
forced back to work, some people would churn them out every year.

As an old drill instructor I used to know used to put it - he never
could force someone to do something.
But he could make the alternitive so bad that people did what they
were told.

No simple solutions that please everyone.

Martin  <><

mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 22 Sep, 09:38, Robbie  wrote:
>> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On 21 Sep, 10:14, Robbie  wrote:
>>>> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On 21 Sep, 09:33, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
>>>>>> Because he does not want to work !! (As far as I can tell)
>>>>>> "Syberian"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:GGzIi.7877$aN2.7176@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>>>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:CHfIi.130501$xp6.76594@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>>> Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if I am
>>>>>>>> right !, can someone please shed some light on this:
>>>>>>>> Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets JSA of
>>>>>>>> £92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
>>>>>>>> of £52 a week.
>>>>>>>> He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme which he
>>>>>>>> is going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.
>>>>>>>> Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA so
>>>>>>>> cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
>>>>>>>> £152 a week + £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to see how
>>>>>>>> he will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
>>>>>>>> he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or can
>>>>>>>> other items be included for Hardship ?.
>>>>>>>> I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before CTC,
>>>>>>>> or can they suspend CTC ?.
>>>>>>>> Danny
>>>>>>> Why would he want to refuse a place on a Training scheme???- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> Isn't a training scheme part of jobseekers agreements these days?
>>>>> Or are they solely optional?
>>>>> Martin  <><
>>>> Not optional, but the bloke has kids so he's happy to just take a
>>>> sanction, by the sounds of it. His JSA is the smallest part of his
>>>> weekly income, the rest is made up of Child Tax Credits and Child
>>>> Benefit, which he knows won't be touched. And his JSA will only be hit
>>>> by 40% for a specified period.
>>>> Effectively, he can refuse a job or training knowing that he won't be
>>>> that much worse off. In the past, the old DHSS used to jail people for
>>>> this, but that hasn't happened for years. And in the even older past,
>>>> the claimant used to be forced to go into residential accommodation to
>>>> be "rehabilitated" back into the ways of work, or if he refused to do
>>>> this, he was, again, jailed. It's the part of the legislation that used
>>>> to cover someone who persistently failed to maintain himself or others
>>>> and as a result benefit was paid. It didn't just cover maintenance now
>>>> covered by the CSA but also maintenance in the sense of a spouse or
>>>> children living with him.
>>>> The legislation has no real teeth these days.
>>>> --
>>>> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> So basically no incentive to do training courses or get a job these
>>> days.
>>> And people wonder how immigrants manage to get work.....
>>> Martin  <><
>> of course, statistically, parents as lazy as this end up with their
>> teenage daughters pregnant and their teenage sons being involved in all
>> kinds of trouble and sometimes flitting between benefits and prison and
>> so the "useless" gene is passed on down the line.
>>
>> Effectively, the father and mother outlined in the original posts are
>> role models of the worst kind. The comeuppance will be when the children
>> all reach school leaving age and there's just the two scrounging adults
>> left - they'll both have to sign on and this time they really can be hit
>> by sanctions of no benefit at all. By then Incapacity Benefit will have
>> been abolished and its replacement won't be an option for them to fall
>> back on.
>>
>> --
>> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Ummm....while I was growing up, at times both my parents were on
> benefits. Once for 5 years.
> Ended up with my dad getting a job paying a little over £2 an hour, 13
> years ago (minimum wage at least makes some things better since then).
> 
> 
> Now both are on benefits again, though all 4 of us children have grown
> up.
> Of the 4 of us, all 4 have jobs, all 4 work damn hard. Only 1 of us
> doesn't have 2 jobs.
> 
> A period of time on benefits does not automatically mean kids grow up
> wanting to claim benefits.
> Neither of course does growing up with 2 parents working force kids to
> get pregnant and claim benefits to get out of work.....  :)
> 
> Martin  <><
> 

I bet your parents were looking for work though - the point I was making 
was that the couple outlined in the first post have no intention of 
working and they are raising their kids to see that living life as a 
waster isn't that harsh an option.

-- 
Robbie

mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 22 Sep, 14:47, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
>> He came to me for a bit of advice, I have known him for years on and off, he
>> does nothing as far as I know, seems to be quite happy with that way of
>> life, seems quite happy to tell you how he does not pay Council Tax or Rent,
>> Kids get Free Meals and Milk, he gets Free Prescriptions etc, I must admit I
>> looked into it because I felt he was having me on, and that it would be
>> Impossible to get or do what he was claiming, yet the more I see the more I
>> believe he is right and I am wrong, yet I have worked since leaving school
>> and he seems to earn as much as me now, which as far as I am I concerned is
>> Wrong !, I believe we need to change things, the government allways seems to
>> talk tough about getting the unemployed back to work, yet for some reason he
>> gets round it, and I still can't really believe just because you have kids
>> they 'Protect' you, surely if he refused a Job Offer or Training Course you
>> could not claim JSA as thats what is supposed to be about ?.
> 
> Though benefit income gives a basic level of living, I prefer working
> and having some influence on my lifestyle.
> New car, running of a car, moving house, getting large house loan,
> paying bills etc.
> I've worked, been on benefit, now working again. While free time is
> nice, having an income that I get to decide is better.
> 
> Whenever the government talk about getting people back to work, they
> have to leave loopholes (big ones) for those who cannot work.
> If they said that people with a child under 1 year old couldn't be
> forced back to work, some people would churn them out every year.
> 
> As an old drill instructor I used to know used to put it - he never
> could force someone to do something.
> But he could make the alternitive so bad that people did what they
> were told.
> 
> No simple solutions that please everyone.
> 
> Martin  <><
> 


The US Federal Government approached the problem by restricting their 
equivalent of JSA (Income based) and IS, known as "welfare" to being 
paid for a maximum 5 years in the lifetime of the recipient, as well as 
allowing individual states (who actually administer the scheme) the 
power to refuse to pay extra for welfare recipients who have children 
while on benefit. Obviously, there is then flexibility for individual 
cases to make payments once the 5 years is up, but this is a 
discretionary payment from a budget that can only account for a small % 
of the welfare budget for an individual state.

The UK Government could do something similar here but lacks the will to 
do so. I wouldn't suggest that it does something as drastic as that, but 
perhaps in examples like the couple in the original post, a 
discretionary payment could be made in the form of vouchers, rather than 
cash. It has been done in the past...

-- 
Robbie

On 22 Sep, 18:42, Robbie  wrote:
> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On 22 Sep, 14:47, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
> >> He came to me for a bit of advice, I have known him for years on and off, he
> >> does nothing as far as I know, seems to be quite happy with that way of
> >> life, seems quite happy to tell you how he does not pay Council Tax or Rent,
> >> Kids get Free Meals and Milk, he gets Free Prescriptions etc, I must admit I
> >> looked into it because I felt he was having me on, and that it would be
> >> Impossible to get or do what he was claiming, yet the more I see the more I
> >> believe he is right and I am wrong, yet I have worked since leaving school
> >> and he seems to earn as much as me now, which as far as I am I concerned is
> >> Wrong !, I believe we need to change things, the government allways seems to
> >> talk tough about getting the unemployed back to work, yet for some reason he
> >> gets round it, and I still can't really believe just because you have kids
> >> they 'Protect' you, surely if he refused a Job Offer or Training Course you
> >> could not claim JSA as thats what is supposed to be about ?.
>
> > Though benefit income gives a basic level of living, I prefer working
> > and having some influence on my lifestyle.
> > New car, running of a car, moving house, getting large house loan,
> > paying bills etc.
> > I've worked, been on benefit, now working again. While free time is
> > nice, having an income that I get to decide is better.
>
> > Whenever the government talk about getting people back to work, they
> > have to leave loopholes (big ones) for those who cannot work.
> > If they said that people with a child under 1 year old couldn't be
> > forced back to work, some people would churn them out every year.
>
> > As an old drill instructor I used to know used to put it - he never
> > could force someone to do something.
> > But he could make the alternitive so bad that people did what they
> > were told.
>
> > No simple solutions that please everyone.
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> The US Federal Government approached the problem by restricting their
> equivalent of JSA (Income based) and IS, known as "welfare" to being
> paid for a maximum 5 years in the lifetime of the recipient, as well as
> allowing individual states (who actually administer the scheme) the
> power to refuse to pay extra for welfare recipients who have children
> while on benefit. Obviously, there is then flexibility for individual
> cases to make payments once the 5 years is up, but this is a
> discretionary payment from a budget that can only account for a small %
> of the welfare budget for an individual state.
>
> The UK Government could do something similar here but lacks the will to
> do so. I wouldn't suggest that it does something as drastic as that, but
> perhaps in examples like the couple in the original post, a
> discretionary payment could be made in the form of vouchers, rather than
> cash. It has been done in the past...
>
> --
> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ah yes, vouchers. I have some in my pocket, accepted everywhere in the
UK. £5 note, £10 note and £20 note.
Seriously, voucher schemes often don't work. Sold for a portion of
their value in order to buy what is wanted.

Martin  <><

In message , Robbie 
 writes

<SNIP>

>The US Federal Government approached the problem by restricting their 
>equivalent of JSA (Income based) and IS, known as "welfare" to being 
>paid for a maximum 5 years in the lifetime of the recipient, as well as 
>allowing individual states (who actually administer the scheme) the 
>power to refuse to pay extra for welfare recipients who have children 
>while on benefit. Obviously, there is then flexibility for individual 
>cases to make payments once the 5 years is up, but this is a 
>discretionary payment from a budget that can only account for a small % 
>of the welfare budget for an individual state.
>
>The UK Government could do something similar here but lacks the will to 
>do so. I wouldn't suggest that it does something as drastic as that, 
>but perhaps in examples like the couple in the original post, a 
>discretionary payment could be made in the form of vouchers, rather 
>than cash. It has been done in the past...

I post rarely here these days and usually only to provide facts not 
opinions.

Robbie I genuinely appreciate the efforts you have made to answer 
questions accurately here recently.

However, some of the comments in this thread have driven me close to 
apoplexy.

<rantmode>

What has happened over the last 30 years is that contributory benefits 
(such as unemployment benefit and retirement pensions) have been reduced 
or abolished.  They have been replaced by stigmatising means-tested 
provision.  When in work most people in this country pay as much, if not 
more, in national insurance contributions than they ever did.  They just 
get little or nothing for it.  Instead of being "entitled" to "social 
security" they are made to "claim" "welfare".  They no longer go to a 
Social Security office - they go to a Jobcentre.  Instead of being 
unemployed or sick citizens receiving the benefits they are entitled to 
they have become welfare-dependent scroungers we can all take a kick at.

Now that we have redefined them we can really go to town. 
Welfare-dependent scroungers, whether sick or caring or (pretty soon I 
would expect) retired, need to stop lounging around watching daytime TV 
(already sympathetically covered in this thread) and get a job.  Any job 
will do, however tedious or low-paid.  I'm tempted to go Godwin and 
suggest that "arbeit macht frei" be marked above the entrance to the 
Jobcentre...

Of course it would be quite wrong for them to be worse off in work than 
out of work, so we should pay them complex, expensive to administer and 
poorly taken up in work benefits such as tax credits and housing and 
council tax benefit.  We should ensure they see a few pounds more than 
if they were on welfare.  It is a little strange that they can end up 
with a marginal rate of tax of more than 95% (as opposed to the 50% of 
the rich) but this has the same sophisticated rationale as in another 
area of public policy - ordinary people need to accept low annual pay 
rises without complaint in order to keep inflation down and contribute 
to a sensible economy, whilst rich people need massive increases and 
bonuses in order to provide them with incentives.

The true economic benefits of "welfare", "workfare", "the Third Way", or 
whatever other terms are used to describe this approach are hard to 
quantify.  In the short term government (or state) spending on welfare 
reduces as people fall out of entitlement, are sanctioned, pushed into 
low-paid work, etc.  But the costs of in work benefits, health services 
and criminal justice may well be greater than the savings.

The "welfare dependent" don't have the same morals as the rest of "us". 
"Scroungers" are "fraudsters".  It doesn't matter if hidden in the small 
print it turns out that the statistics are about "fraud and error", not 
just "fraud", and that "error" is usually much the bigger part of that. 
Nor does it matter that much fraud is clearly undertaken by landlords or 
professional criminals.  Bang on long enough about the odd individual 
that no one would defend (the starting point here) and you can convince 
the great British public that all are tarred with the same brush.

A logical step (not commented on here) is the introduction of the 
lie-detector for benefit claimants.  Like the identity card and the 
recording of all your movements on CCTV, only those who have something 
to fear could possibly be concerned, right?

I've no idea how people manage to live on £56 a week.  It seems a hard 
enough existence to me without labelling as them lying cheating workshy 
scum as well.

I'd have thought the ongoing Iraq debacle, a consequence of American 
neo-conservative foreign policy, might give those who are keen on 
American neo-conservative social policy pause for thought...

</rantmode>


Clive

-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

On Sep 22, 6:30 pm, Robbie  wrote:
> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On 22 Sep, 09:38, Robbie  wrote:
> >> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On 21 Sep, 10:14, Robbie  wrote:
> >>>> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On 21 Sep, 09:33, "Blueyonder"  wrote:
> >>>>>> Because he does not want to work !! (As far as I can tell)
> >>>>>> "Syberian"  wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:GGzIi.7877$aN2.7176@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> >>>>>>> "Blueyonder"  wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:CHfIi.130501$xp6.76594@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>>>>>> Hi, I am trying to advise someone, and to be honest I don't know if I am
> >>>>>>>> right !, can someone please shed some light on this:
> >>>>>>>> Neil is Married and has 4 Children aged 3,6,11 and 13 and he gets JSA of
> >>>>>>>> £92.80 per fortnight and CTC of £152 a week, and CB
> >>>>>>>> of £52 a week.
> >>>>>>>> He will be getting told (Offered !) a place on a Training scheme which he
> >>>>>>>> is going to REFUSE and claim a Hardship Payment.
> >>>>>>>> Now as I understand it the CTC is paid really separate from his JSA so
> >>>>>>>> cannot be suspended, this would give him a income of
> >>>>>>>> £152 a week  £52 a week CB a total of £204 a week, and I fail to see how
> >>>>>>>> he will convience them he would be in hardship !, since
> >>>>>>>> he would have enough out of the £204 to pay for food and heating, or can
> >>>>>>>> other items be included for Hardship ?.
> >>>>>>>> I think he would have had a better chance under the old rules before CTC,
> >>>>>>>> or can they suspend CTC ?.
> >>>>>>>> Danny
> >>>>>>> Why would he want to refuse a place on a Training scheme???- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> Isn't a training scheme part of jobseekers agreements these days?
> >>>>> Or are they solely optional?
> >>>>> Martin  <><
> >>>> Not optional, but the bloke has kids so he's happy to just take a
> >>>> sanction, by the sounds of it. His JSA is the smallest part of his
> >>>> weekly income, the rest is made up of Child Tax Credits and Child
> >>>> Benefit, which he knows won't be touched. And his JSA will only be hit
> >>>> by 40% for a specified period.
> >>>> Effectively, he can refuse a job or training knowing that he won't be
> >>>> that much worse off. In the past, the old DHSS used to jail people for
> >>>> this, but that hasn't happened for years. And in the even older past,
> >>>> the claimant used to be forced to go into residential accommodation to
> >>>> be "rehabilitated" back into the ways of work, or if he refused to do
> >>>> this, he was, again, jailed. It's the part of the legislation that used
> >>>> to cover someone who persistently failed to maintain himself or others
> >>>> and as a result benefit was paid. It didn't just cover maintenance now
> >>>> covered by the CSA but also maintenance in the sense of a spouse or
> >>>> children living with him.
> >>>> The legislation has no real teeth these days.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> So basically no incentive to do training courses or get a job these
> >>> days.
> >>> And people wonder how immigrants manage to get work.....
> >>> Martin  <><
> >> of course, statistically, parents as lazy as this end up with their
> >> teenage daughters pregnant and their teenage sons being involved in all
> >> kinds of trouble and sometimes flitting between benefits and prison and
> >> so the "useless" gene is passed on down the line.
>
> >> Effectively, the father and mother outlined in the original posts are
> >> role models of the worst kind. The comeuppance will be when the children
> >> all reach school leaving age and there's just the two scrounging adults
> >> left - they'll both have to sign on and this time they really can be hit
> >> by sanctions of no benefit at all. By then Incapacity Benefit will have
> >> been abolished and its replacement won't be an option for them to fall
> >> back on.
>
> >> --
> >> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ummm....while I was growing up, at times both my parents were on
> > benefits. Once for 5 years.
> > Ended up with my dad getting a job paying a little over £2 an hour, 13
> > years ago (minimum wage at least makes some things better since then).
>
> > Now both are on benefits again, though all 4 of us children have grown
> > up.
> > Of the 4 of us, all 4 have jobs, all 4 work damn hard. Only 1 of us
> > doesn't have 2 jobs.
>
> > A period of time on benefits does not automatically mean kids grow up
> > wanting to claim benefits.
> > Neither of course does growing up with 2 parents working force kids to
> > get pregnant and claim benefits to get out of work.....  :)
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> I bet your parents were looking for work though - the point I was making
> was that the couple outlined in the first post have no intention of
> working and they are raising their kids to see that living life as a
> waster isn't that harsh an option.
>
> --
> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's true - when I used to visit I knew a lot about customers and the
estate they lived on and whole families would claim.  Kids would
gradutae from their parents claim to one of their own.  Working at JCP
dealing with 16/17 year olds claiming IS/JSA I often used to check
back to see if their parents were on benefit (part of the process not
idle curiosity) and the odds were approaching 50/50 that the parents
were on benefits.

In my experience, whatever the reasons, it's more likely that a child
from a family on benefits is more likely to grow up and go on benefits
than one not.  Even within my own extended family this is true.

Mike