Signed on today, new claim, new day. same old shit! :D

was given a sheet with some general info regarding jsa. one thing
struck me immediately, partly because it was highlughted and partly
ebcause it is really stupid:

if your jobsearch activity doesn't match your jobseeker agreement
info, you lose your benefit.

thus is you decide to pursue work in a completely different field, no
matter how hard you look, if that field isn't in your JSA, you're up
shit creek!

Lovely!

On 9 Nov, 12:22, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Signed on today, new claim, new day. same old shit! :D
>
> was given a sheet with some general info regarding jsa. one thing
> struck me immediately, partly because it was highlughted and partly
> ebcause it is really stupid:
>
> if your jobsearch activity doesn't match your jobseeker agreement
> info, you lose your benefit.
>
> thus is you decide to pursue work in a completely different field, no
> matter how hard you look, if that field isn't in your JSA, you're up
> shit creek!
>
> Lovely!

Can you not get agreement amended?
Or have they stopped doing that now?

Martin  <><

On Nov 9, 12:54 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On 9 Nov, 12:22, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > Signed on today, new claim, new day. same old shit! :D
>
> > was given a sheet with some general info regarding jsa. one thing
> > struck me immediately, partly because it was highlughted and partly
> > ebcause it is really stupid:
>
> > if your jobsearch activity doesn't match your jobseeker agreement
> > info, you lose your benefit.
>
> > thus is you decide to pursue work in a completely different field, no
> > matter how hard you look, if that field isn't in your JSA, you're up
> > shit creek!
>
> > Lovely!
>
> Can you not get agreement amended?
> Or have they stopped doing that now?
>
> Martin  <><

you can, though it's made very difficult (ie, you have to book a
separate appointment to do it. you can't do it when you go to
regularly sign). however you are always bound by the types of work the
jc endorse (my local jc has a laminated list of 'accepeable work'). So
if you end up looking for something else, you're again in trouble.

how very kafka.

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:04:00 -0000, ghostwhistler@googlemail.com
wrote:

>On Nov 9, 12:54 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
>wrote:
>> On 9 Nov, 12:22, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Signed on today, new claim, new day. same old shit! :D
>>
>> > was given a sheet with some general info regarding jsa. one thing
>> > struck me immediately, partly because it was highlughted and partly
>> > ebcause it is really stupid:
>>
>> > if your jobsearch activity doesn't match your jobseeker agreement
>> > info, you lose your benefit.
>>
>> > thus is you decide to pursue work in a completely different field, no
>> > matter how hard you look, if that field isn't in your JSA, you're up
>> > shit creek!
>>
>> > Lovely!
>>
>> Can you not get agreement amended?
>> Or have they stopped doing that now?
>>
>> Martin  <><
>
>you can, though it's made very difficult (ie, you have to book a
>separate appointment to do it. you can't do it when you go to
>regularly sign). however you are always bound by the types of work the
>jc endorse (my local jc has a laminated list of 'accepeable work'). So
>if you end up looking for something else, you're again in trouble.
>
>how very kafka.


Cos it's too much effort to go to the job centre twice in a fortnight?

When I signed on I had huge rows with the staff because I wrote I
would work "anywhere" and that was too general and they wanted me to
be more specific. 

It's got to be an incentive to find yourself a job more quickly than
have to deal with them there.
-- 
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk

On Nov 9, 2:44 pm, mogga  wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:04:00 -0000, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 9, 12:54 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> >wrote:
> >> On 9 Nov, 12:22, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> >> > Signed on today, new claim, new day. same old shit! :D
>
> >> > was given a sheet with some general info regarding jsa. one thing
> >> > struck me immediately, partly because it was highlughted and partly
> >> > ebcause it is really stupid:
>
> >> > if your jobsearch activity doesn't match your jobseeker agreement
> >> > info, you lose your benefit.
>
> >> > thus is you decide to pursue work in a completely different field, no
> >> > matter how hard you look, if that field isn't in your JSA, you're up
> >> > shit creek!
>
> >> > Lovely!
>
> >> Can you not get agreement amended?
> >> Or have they stopped doing that now?
>
> >> Martin  <><
>
> >you can, though it's made very difficult (ie, you have to book a
> >separate appointment to do it. you can't do it when you go to
> >regularly sign). however you are always bound by the types of work the
> >jc endorse (my local jc has a laminated list of 'accepeable work'). So
> >if you end up looking for something else, you're again in trouble.
>
> >how very kafka.
>
> Cos it's too much effort to go to the job centre twice in a fortnight?
>
> When I signed on I had huge rows with the staff because I wrote I
> would work "anywhere" and that was too general and they wanted me to
> be more specific.
>
> It's got to be an incentive to find yourself a job more quickly than
> have to deal with them there.
> --http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk

ironically the entire system is an incentive not to deal with it.
unfortuantely there aren't terribly many options.

wrote in message
news:1194610956.459999.89610@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> Signed on today, new claim, new day. same old shit! :D
>
> was given a sheet with some general info regarding jsa. one thing
> struck me immediately, partly because it was highlughted and partly
> ebcause it is really stupid:
>
> if your jobsearch activity doesn't match your jobseeker agreement
> info, you lose your benefit.

Not so. All your JSA Agreement specifies is the minimum number
of jobs you need apply for in those fields agreed between yourself
and your JSA advisor at your last review, which should havetaken
place within the last six months.

You are quite free to pursue as many additional leads as you like
in other fields providing you satisfy the above requirement.


>
> thus is you decide to pursue work in a completely different field, no
> matter how hard you look, if that field isn't in your JSA, you're up
> shit creek!

Not at all. See above,

The question also arises as to why you agreed to search for work
in a particular field in the first place, in consultation with your
JSA advisor, if you then decide you want to pursue something entirely
different afterwards.

The requirement is in place in order to prevent claimants from pursuing
vacancies in fields wher they have no possibilty of gaining employment,
as a means of circumventing the JSA conditions. Whereby its necessary
for claimants to convince their JSA advisor that they have a realisitic
possibility of finding work in a particular area.

But in any case, as already pointed out there's nothing to prevent
you from pursuing leads in as many additional area as you wish, providing
you satisfy the minimum reqruirements in terms of applications
as agreed with your JSA advisor.

I can only assume this wasn't properly explained to you.


PM.





>
> Lovely!
>

On 9 Nov, 12:22, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Signed on today, new claim, new day. same old shit! :D
>
> was given a sheet with some general info regarding jsa. one thing
> struck me immediately, partly because it was highlughted and partly
> ebcause it is really stupid:
>
> if your jobsearch activity doesn't match your jobseeker agreement
> info, you lose your benefit.
>
> thus is you decide to pursue work in a completely different field, no
> matter how hard you look, if that field isn't in your JSA, you're up
> shit creek!
>
> Lovely!

If you persue work in your agreed field as well there's no problem,
also most agreements are quite vague.

Mike

On 9 Nov, 20:15, Mike 
wrote:
> On 9 Nov, 12:22, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > Signed on today, new claim, new day. same old shit! :D
>
> > was given a sheet with some general info regarding jsa. one thing
> > struck me immediately, partly because it was highlughted and partly
> > ebcause it is really stupid:
>
> > if your jobsearch activity doesn't match your jobseeker agreement
> > info, you lose your benefit.
>
> > thus is you decide to pursue work in a completely different field, no
> > matter how hard you look, if that field isn't in your JSA, you're up
> > shit creek!
>
> > Lovely!
>
> If you persue work in your agreed field as well there's no problem,
> also most agreements are quite vague.
>
> Mike

You also tend to specify your agreed field in something you have
experience useful in.
Though some people get extremely specialised, often skills can be
useful in quite different fields.

Martin  <><

On Nov 9, 9:47 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On 9 Nov, 20:15, Mike 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9 Nov, 12:22, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > Signed on today, new claim, new day. same old shit! :D
>
> > > was given a sheet with some general info regarding jsa. one thing
> > > struck me immediately, partly because it was highlughted and partly
> > > ebcause it is really stupid:
>
> > > if your jobsearch activity doesn't match your jobseeker agreement
> > > info, you lose your benefit.
>
> > > thus is you decide to pursue work in a completely different field, no
> > > matter how hard you look, if that field isn't in your JSA, you're up
> > > shit creek!
>
> > > Lovely!
>
> > If you persue work in your agreed field as well there's no problem,
> > also most agreements are quite vague.
>
> > Mike
>
> You also tend to specify your agreed field in something you have
> experience useful in.
> Though some people get extremely specialised, often skills can be
> useful in quite different fields.
>
> Martin  <><

assuming you can.

> Not so. All your JSA Agreement specifies is the minimum number
> of jobs you need apply for in those fields agreed between yourself
> and your JSA advisor at your last review, which should havetaken
> place within the last six months.
>
no, you have to set out three agreed types of work (by agreed, they
have to be types the JC recognise and accept, regardless ow what they
are or what you have done).

> You are quite free to pursue as many additional leads as you like
> in other fields providing you satisfy the above requirement.

YOu miss the point; why should i be penalised because the only work
available or that i choose to look for, if you like, is different from
that which i have agreed? Why should my efforts be invalidated and
neutered just ebcause of an abritrary rule?

> The question also arises as to why you agreed to search for work
> in a particular field in the first place, in consultation with your
> JSA advisor, if you then decide you want to pursue something entirely
> different afterwards.
>
For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
really).

> The requirement is in place in order to prevent claimants from pursuing
> vacancies in fields wher they have no possibilty of gaining employment,
> as a means of circumventing the JSA conditions. Whereby its necessary
> for claimants to convince their JSA advisor that they have a realisitic
> possibility of finding work in a particular area.
>
Why hsould it be something that i have no possibility of gaining
employment in? That's another of their arbitrary decisions. it stupid.
why should i be forced into a meaningless minimum wage casual job that
doesn't benefit society at all (other than the pittance i might pay in
taxes - i say might because if you include working tax credits also
then chances are your contribution is 0). What good does that approach
do anyone?

On 10 Nov, 13:12, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Not so. All your JSA Agreement specifies is the minimum number
> > of jobs you need apply for in those fields agreed between yourself
> > and your JSA advisor at your last review, which should havetaken
> > place within the last six months.
>
> no, you have to set out three agreed types of work (by agreed, they
> have to be types the JC recognise and accept, regardless ow what they
> are or what you have done).
>
> > You are quite free to pursue as many additional leads as you like
> > in other fields providing you satisfy the above requirement.
>
> YOu miss the point; why should i be penalised because the only work
> available or that i choose to look for, if you like, is different from
> that which i have agreed? Why should my efforts be invalidated and
> neutered just ebcause of an abritrary rule?
>
> > The question also arises as to why you agreed to search for work
> > in a particular field in the first place, in consultation with your
> > JSA advisor, if you then decide you want to pursue something entirely
> > different afterwards.
>
> For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
> only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
> what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
> MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
> made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
> really).
>
> > The requirement is in place in order to prevent claimants from pursuing
> > vacancies in fields wher they have no possibilty of gaining employment,
> > as a means of circumventing the JSA conditions. Whereby its necessary
> > for claimants to convince their JSA advisor that they have a realisitic
> > possibility of finding work in a particular area.
>
> Why hsould it be something that i have no possibility of gaining
> employment in? That's another of their arbitrary decisions. it stupid.
> why should i be forced into a meaningless minimum wage casual job that
> doesn't benefit society at all (other than the pittance i might pay in
> taxes - i say might because if you include working tax credits also
> then chances are your contribution is 0). What good does that approach
> do anyone?

Well, its one incentive for you to find a better job quickly.
Whereas the JC objective isn't to find you a better job, its to get
you off benefit. The minimum wage casual job might not be what you
want - but when has that ever mattered in terms of benefit?

What you declare you NEED is a job. Finding one that meets your
financial requirements, longevity requirements and time requirements
isn't part of their objectives.


Martin  <><

On Nov 10, 1:51 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On 10 Nov, 13:12, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Not so. All your JSA Agreement specifies is the minimum number
> > > of jobs you need apply for in those fields agreed between yourself
> > > and your JSA advisor at your last review, which should havetaken
> > > place within the last six months.
>
> > no, you have to set out three agreed types of work (by agreed, they
> > have to be types the JC recognise and accept, regardless ow what they
> > are or what you have done).
>
> > > You are quite free to pursue as many additional leads as you like
> > > in other fields providing you satisfy the above requirement.
>
> > YOu miss the point; why should i be penalised because the only work
> > available or that i choose to look for, if you like, is different from
> > that which i have agreed? Why should my efforts be invalidated and
> > neutered just ebcause of an abritrary rule?
>
> > > The question also arises as to why you agreed to search for work
> > > in a particular field in the first place, in consultation with your
> > > JSA advisor, if you then decide you want to pursue something entirely
> > > different afterwards.
>
> > For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
> > only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
> > what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
> > MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
> > made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
> > really).
>
> > > The requirement is in place in order to prevent claimants from pursuing
> > > vacancies in fields wher they have no possibilty of gaining employment,
> > > as a means of circumventing the JSA conditions. Whereby its necessary
> > > for claimants to convince their JSA advisor that they have a realisitic
> > > possibility of finding work in a particular area.
>
> > Why hsould it be something that i have no possibility of gaining
> > employment in? That's another of their arbitrary decisions. it stupid.
> > why should i be forced into a meaningless minimum wage casual job that
> > doesn't benefit society at all (other than the pittance i might pay in
> > taxes - i say might because if you include working tax credits also
> > then chances are your contribution is 0). What good does that approach
> > do anyone?
>
> Well, its one incentive for you to find a better job quickly.
> Whereas the JC objective isn't to find you a better job, its to get
> you off benefit. The minimum wage casual job might not be what you
> want - but when has that ever mattered in terms of benefit?
>
> What you declare you NEED is a job. Finding one that meets your
> financial requirements, longevity requirements and time requirements
> isn't part of their objectives.
>
> Martin  <><

Indeed.

That however is the problem. Forcing people to take the crap they
advertise (its not as if the JC canvas for work either) is really not
a good plan for society.

On 10 Nov, 16:25, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Nov 10, 1:51 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Nov, 13:12, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Not so. All your JSA Agreement specifies is the minimum number
> > > > of jobs you need apply for in those fields agreed between yourself
> > > > and your JSA advisor at your last review, which should havetaken
> > > > place within the last six months.
>
> > > no, you have to set out three agreed types of work (by agreed, they
> > > have to be types the JC recognise and accept, regardless ow what they
> > > are or what you have done).
>
> > > > You are quite free to pursue as many additional leads as you like
> > > > in other fields providing you satisfy the above requirement.
>
> > > YOu miss the point; why should i be penalised because the only work
> > > available or that i choose to look for, if you like, is different from
> > > that which i have agreed? Why should my efforts be invalidated and
> > > neutered just ebcause of an abritrary rule?
>
> > > > The question also arises as to why you agreed to search for work
> > > > in a particular field in the first place, in consultation with your
> > > > JSA advisor, if you then decide you want to pursue something entirely
> > > > different afterwards.
>
> > > For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
> > > only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
> > > what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
> > > MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
> > > made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
> > > really).
>
> > > > The requirement is in place in order to prevent claimants from pursuing
> > > > vacancies in fields wher they have no possibilty of gaining employment,
> > > > as a means of circumventing the JSA conditions. Whereby its necessary
> > > > for claimants to convince their JSA advisor that they have a realisitic
> > > > possibility of finding work in a particular area.
>
> > > Why hsould it be something that i have no possibility of gaining
> > > employment in? That's another of their arbitrary decisions. it stupid.
> > > why should i be forced into a meaningless minimum wage casual job that
> > > doesn't benefit society at all (other than the pittance i might pay in
> > > taxes - i say might because if you include working tax credits also
> > > then chances are your contribution is 0). What good does that approach
> > > do anyone?
>
> > Well, its one incentive for you to find a better job quickly.
> > Whereas the JC objective isn't to find you a better job, its to get
> > you off benefit. The minimum wage casual job might not be what you
> > want - but when has that ever mattered in terms of benefit?
>
> > What you declare you NEED is a job. Finding one that meets your
> > financial requirements, longevity requirements and time requirements
> > isn't part of their objectives.
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> Indeed.
>
> That however is the problem. Forcing people to take the crap they
> advertise (its not as if the JC canvas for work either) is really not
> a good plan for society.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh its good for society. Gets people off benefit, gets vacancies
filled, gets work done. Work gets done, wages and tax credits get
paid, goods and services are purchased and so on.
Just not good for the individual who wants something better.
Still, no-one forces companies to advertise through the jobcentre. Its
cheap, its easy, but you do get some people applying who haven't a
chance of getting the job.

Like it or not, we do need some jobs doing as a society. Pay might be
crap (though considerably better than before NMW) but for many it is a
lot better than being stuck on benefit the rest of their life.
Some cannot afford to come off benefit for any job, and some don't
have the skills (and won't try and get them) to get higher paid jobs.

Martin  <><

On Nov 10, 5:15 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On 10 Nov, 16:25, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 1:51 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 10 Nov, 13:12, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Not so. All your JSA Agreement specifies is the minimum number
> > > > > of jobs you need apply for in those fields agreed between yourself
> > > > > and your JSA advisor at your last review, which should havetaken
> > > > > place within the last six months.
>
> > > > no, you have to set out three agreed types of work (by agreed, they
> > > > have to be types the JC recognise and accept, regardless ow what they
> > > > are or what you have done).
>
> > > > > You are quite free to pursue as many additional leads as you like
> > > > > in other fields providing you satisfy the above requirement.
>
> > > > YOu miss the point; why should i be penalised because the only work
> > > > available or that i choose to look for, if you like, is different from
> > > > that which i have agreed? Why should my efforts be invalidated and
> > > > neutered just ebcause of an abritrary rule?
>
> > > > > The question also arises as to why you agreed to search for work
> > > > > in a particular field in the first place, in consultation with your
> > > > > JSA advisor, if you then decide you want to pursue something entirely
> > > > > different afterwards.
>
> > > > For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
> > > > only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
> > > > what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
> > > > MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
> > > > made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
> > > > really).
>
> > > > > The requirement is in place in order to prevent claimants from pursuing
> > > > > vacancies in fields wher they have no possibilty of gaining employment,
> > > > > as a means of circumventing the JSA conditions. Whereby its necessary
> > > > > for claimants to convince their JSA advisor that they have a realisitic
> > > > > possibility of finding work in a particular area.
>
> > > > Why hsould it be something that i have no possibility of gaining
> > > > employment in? That's another of their arbitrary decisions. it stupid.
> > > > why should i be forced into a meaningless minimum wage casual job that
> > > > doesn't benefit society at all (other than the pittance i might pay in
> > > > taxes - i say might because if you include working tax credits also
> > > > then chances are your contribution is 0). What good does that approach
> > > > do anyone?
>
> > > Well, its one incentive for you to find a better job quickly.
> > > Whereas the JC objective isn't to find you a better job, its to get
> > > you off benefit. The minimum wage casual job might not be what you
> > > want - but when has that ever mattered in terms of benefit?
>
> > > What you declare you NEED is a job. Finding one that meets your
> > > financial requirements, longevity requirements and time requirements
> > > isn't part of their objectives.
>
> > > Martin  <><
>
> > Indeed.
>
> > That however is the problem. Forcing people to take the crap they
> > advertise (its not as if the JC canvas for work either) is really not
> > a good plan for society.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh its good for society. Gets people off benefit, gets vacancies
> filled, gets work done. Work gets done, wages and tax credits get
> paid, goods and services are purchased and so on.
> Just not good for the individual who wants something better.
> Still, no-one forces companies to advertise through the jobcentre. Its
> cheap, its easy, but you do get some people applying who haven't a
> chance of getting the job.
>
> Like it or not, we do need some jobs doing as a society. Pay might be
> crap (though considerably better than before NMW) but for many it is a
> lot better than being stuck on benefit the rest of their life.
> Some cannot afford to come off benefit for any job, and some don't
> have the skills (and won't try and get them) to get higher paid jobs.
>
> Martin  <><

Is it a lot better? I'm not so sure.

And if people haven't the skills, why not give the chance to get them?

Obviously because the people who benefit the most from this fucked up
system don't want that.

On 11 Nov, 21:36, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Nov 10, 5:15 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Nov, 16:25, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 10, 1:51 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On 10 Nov, 13:12, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > Not so. All your JSA Agreement specifies is the minimum number
> > > > > > of jobs you need apply for in those fields agreed between yourself
> > > > > > and your JSA advisor at your last review, which should havetaken
> > > > > > place within the last six months.
>
> > > > > no, you have to set out three agreed types of work (by agreed, they
> > > > > have to be types the JC recognise and accept, regardless ow what they
> > > > > are or what you have done).
>
> > > > > > You are quite free to pursue as many additional leads as you like
> > > > > > in other fields providing you satisfy the above requirement.
>
> > > > > YOu miss the point; why should i be penalised because the only work
> > > > > available or that i choose to look for, if you like, is different from
> > > > > that which i have agreed? Why should my efforts be invalidated and
> > > > > neutered just ebcause of an abritrary rule?
>
> > > > > > The question also arises as to why you agreed to search for work
> > > > > > in a particular field in the first place, in consultation with your
> > > > > > JSA advisor, if you then decide you want to pursue something entirely
> > > > > > different afterwards.
>
> > > > > For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
> > > > > only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
> > > > > what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
> > > > > MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
> > > > > made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
> > > > > really).
>
> > > > > > The requirement is in place in order to prevent claimants from pursuing
> > > > > > vacancies in fields wher they have no possibilty of gaining employment,
> > > > > > as a means of circumventing the JSA conditions. Whereby its necessary
> > > > > > for claimants to convince their JSA advisor that they have a realisitic
> > > > > > possibility of finding work in a particular area.
>
> > > > > Why hsould it be something that i have no possibility of gaining
> > > > > employment in? That's another of their arbitrary decisions. it stupid.
> > > > > why should i be forced into a meaningless minimum wage casual job that
> > > > > doesn't benefit society at all (other than the pittance i might pay in
> > > > > taxes - i say might because if you include working tax credits also
> > > > > then chances are your contribution is 0). What good does that approach
> > > > > do anyone?
>
> > > > Well, its one incentive for you to find a better job quickly.
> > > > Whereas the JC objective isn't to find you a better job, its to get
> > > > you off benefit. The minimum wage casual job might not be what you
> > > > want - but when has that ever mattered in terms of benefit?
>
> > > > What you declare you NEED is a job. Finding one that meets your
> > > > financial requirements, longevity requirements and time requirements
> > > > isn't part of their objectives.
>
> > > > Martin  <><
>
> > > Indeed.
>
> > > That however is the problem. Forcing people to take the crap they
> > > advertise (its not as if the JC canvas for work either) is really not
> > > a good plan for society.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Oh its good for society. Gets people off benefit, gets vacancies
> > filled, gets work done. Work gets done, wages and tax credits get
> > paid, goods and services are purchased and so on.
> > Just not good for the individual who wants something better.
> > Still, no-one forces companies to advertise through the jobcentre. Its
> > cheap, its easy, but you do get some people applying who haven't a
> > chance of getting the job.
>
> > Like it or not, we do need some jobs doing as a society. Pay might be
> > crap (though considerably better than before NMW) but for many it is a
> > lot better than being stuck on benefit the rest of their life.
> > Some cannot afford to come off benefit for any job, and some don't
> > have the skills (and won't try and get them) to get higher paid jobs.
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> Is it a lot better? I'm not so sure.
>
> And if people haven't the skills, why not give the chance to get them?

They do have the chance to get them. Just most don't take the chance.
For some skills, much easier to get while in a job. Others require
lots of time and effort.

Hell, its easy to get even a library card but seems like much of the
population don't even want that.
Some skills can be started from books.  :)


>
> Obviously because the people who benefit the most from this fucked up
> system don't want that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The people who benefit most? Would that be the ones paying out for
others? Or the ones getting the money and not having to do as much for
it as others?
We have a crap benefits system. Though somewhat better than no
benefits system, at least for those who cannot work.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:1194711912.643516.88310@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 10, 1:51 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> wrote:
>> On 10 Nov, 13:12, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
> That however is the problem. Forcing people to take the crap they
> advertise (its not as if the JC canvas for work either) is really not
> a good plan for society.
>

They cant make you apply for a job you do not want, yes I know, I am opening 
up a can of worms again. It works like this, they sanction you for refusing 
a job you do not want because its stated in an agreement made by them, not 
you, you were forced to sign it. You then go to tribunal and explain you 
refused on mental health grounds etc, case is decided in your favour. They 
will never admit to forcing people to perform tasks that can potentially 
make them mentally ill for whatever reason. Thats step one in fighting for 
your rights, but it usually does not get that far.

And before you ask, I have been here as well. Its seems to me that you are 
not listening when it comes to making your JSAg, pay particular attention to 
the word AGREEMENT, they cannot dictate the agreement to you, otherwise it 
is not an agreement in law, you cannot be forced to comply to make an 
agreement for it ceases to be an agreement there and then, and if they use 
threats to make you sign, you make it clear that you want to complain.
Any such agreement made in this manner is not worth the paper its written on 
and they know it. YOU must make it clear to them what you are prepared to do 
to find work, within reason that is. They will argue against your proposals 
every time without fail, but its up to you to AGREE the terms that are 
practical and suitable for you.

There is such a thing as health and safety regs, they cannot force you to do 
something that you feel is affecting your health and general state of mind, 
causing you anxiety etc, tell them if they force this shit on you - you will 
have to claim Income Support, then see your doctor and get a letter 
explaining that you are being subjected to mental cruelty, and under threat 
of being left without money for food because you cant cope with their 
excessive and unreasonable demands. All you want to do is be allowed to look 
for jobs which you feel you can cope with, and that is all they should 
expect from you.

Whenever I was told to make a JSAg, reviewing the JSAg as its know, If it 
was dictated to me I always pointed out that I did not agree with it. If 
they put what I was prepared to do to find work, then fine I signed it no 
problem. There is a section in the JSAg that allows you to have your say, 
the part they like you to leave blank, I always write in there, "Will apply 
for any job that I consider myself capable of doing", or "Signed under 
duress" They wont give me a JSAg now.

Anyway I have grown weary of arguing with the JC and I dont care what they 
do me. Having being so used to fighting battles with me on regular basis it 
must have come as a shock to find I am no longer willing to pick up the 
glove. I have taken a stance of complete indifference and decided to love my 
fellow human beings and to treat them with reverence despite them fucking me 
about, and its definitely thrown them. I have gone all peace and love on 
their asses and they dont know how to deal with it. I expect they think they 
have finally driven me insane and its time to move on. No more stupid 
questions, sign here and goodbye.

Thing is, can I handle being left alone like this, I am not used to being 
treated with respect. I expect to get my ass kicked for no good reason and 
offered the same mind numbing job vacancy that has been permanently 
advertised in the JC for the last 20 years, the same job I have applied for 
a thousand times over and was refused a thousand times over.

If they dont find a suitable hampster soon, preferably one that has no pride 
and has lost the will to live, that vacancy will exist for another 20 years 
methinks.

wrote in message 
news:1194817014.249098.156830@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 10, 5:15 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> wrote:
>> On 10 Nov, 16:25, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>
> Is it a lot better? I'm not so sure.
>
> And if people haven't the skills, why not give the chance to get them?
>

Yes, I have often wondered why people are kept down in this country, but 
kept down we are, there is no network available via any medium for people 
who want to better themselves, gain new job related skills in any industry, 
trade or profession. If you are not born into it you are fucked.


> Obviously because the people who benefit the most from this fucked up
> system don't want that.
>

No they do not want that, its all about control, the more peasants we have 
the better, its mass discrimination thats what it is, forget race bullshit 
and political correctness and what is right, there is no law to protect 
people from poverty, no law to say people are entitled to progress in life. 
No we will stick with the usual fucked up meaningless bullshit that claims 
to protect peoples rights as long as they cant afford a pot to piss in, then 
its ok.

On 12 Nov, 11:19, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:1194817014.249098.156830@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 10, 5:15 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> > wrote:
> >> On 10 Nov, 16:25, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > Is it a lot better? I'm not so sure.
>
> > And if people haven't the skills, why not give the chance to get them?
>
> Yes, I have often wondered why people are kept down in this country, but
> kept down we are, there is no network available via any medium for people
> who want to better themselves, gain new job related skills in any industry,
> trade or profession. If you are not born into it you are fucked.
>

Kept down? Yes. By themselves.
No-one else is responsible for getting you skills but you.

Funny really, besides working for employers and gaining skills,
there's volunteering, joining the TA, paying for training courses,
doing cheap or free training courses, books, speakers, practical
demonstrations, have a go demonstrations, plus getting the training
and taking it further yourself with the right materials.
Oh, and getting an education too - something not everyone chooses to
do even while at school.


> > Obviously because the people who benefit the most from this fucked up
> > system don't want that.
>
> No they do not want that, its all about control, the more peasants we have
> the better, its mass discrimination thats what it is, forget race bullshit
> and political correctness and what is right, there is no law to protect
> people from poverty,

True. And why should there be?
Definition of poverty is fluid, means something different to different
people and in different countries.
Here, we have a relatively rich country. Most have a place to sleep,
we all have regular money (albeit different amounts) and there are
loads of opportunities.
Can't recall the last time someone died of starvation here except by
accident or choice.


no law to say people are entitled to progress in life.

True. People can choose to progress. Or not.
Its easy to progress, its even easier (by a long shot) to not.

> No we will stick with the usual fucked up meaningless bullshit that claims
> to protect peoples rights as long as they cant afford a pot to piss in, then
> its ok.

What rights?
Rights are arbitary, often given but cannot be guaranteed. And can be
affected by decisions and actions of others.

Martin  <><

>>
>> > > > > For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
>> > > > > only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
>> > > > > what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
>> > > > > MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
>> > > > > made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
>> > > > > really).
>>
.

Oh  *do* give the location of this Jobcentre. If what you say *is* a
fact I shall be happy to take the matter further - all I need is for
you to provide details - if you care to, that is.

However I feel this may just be a flight of fancy from yet another
whinging jobshirker.

wrote in message 
news:1194870437.126358.31530@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 Nov, 11:19, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> news:1194817014.249098.156830@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Nov 10, 5:15 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 10 Nov, 16:25, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Is it a lot better? I'm not so sure.
>>
>> > And if people haven't the skills, why not give the chance to get them?
>>
>> Yes, I have often wondered why people are kept down in this country, but
>> kept down we are, there is no network available via any medium for people
>> who want to better themselves, gain new job related skills in any 
>> industry,
>> trade or profession. If you are not born into it you are fucked.
>>
>
> Kept down? Yes. By themselves.
> No-one else is responsible for getting you skills but you.
>
> Funny really, besides working for employers and gaining skills,
> there's volunteering, joining the TA, paying for training courses,
> doing cheap or free training courses, books, speakers, practical
> demonstrations, have a go demonstrations, plus getting the training
> and taking it further yourself with the right materials.
> Oh, and getting an education too - something not everyone chooses to
> do even while at school.
>
>
>> > Obviously because the people who benefit the most from this fucked up
>> > system don't want that.
>>
>> No they do not want that, its all about control, the more peasants we 
>> have
>> the better, its mass discrimination thats what it is, forget race 
>> bullshit
>> and political correctness and what is right, there is no law to protect
>> people from poverty,
>
> True. And why should there be?
> Definition of poverty is fluid, means something different to different
> people and in different countries.
> Here, we have a relatively rich country. Most have a place to sleep,
> we all have regular money (albeit different amounts) and there are
> loads of opportunities.
> Can't recall the last time someone died of starvation here except by
> accident or choice.
>
>
> no law to say people are entitled to progress in life.
>
> True. People can choose to progress. Or not.
> Its easy to progress, its even easier (by a long shot) to not.
>
>> No we will stick with the usual fucked up meaningless bullshit that 
>> claims
>> to protect peoples rights as long as they cant afford a pot to piss in, 
>> then
>> its ok.
>
> What rights?
> Rights are arbitary, often given but cannot be guaranteed. And can be
> affected by decisions and actions of others.
>
> Martin  <><
>

Stop being pedantic Martin, you know what I am talking about. You try going 
to college, part or full time, to get a worthwhile trade and see how far you 
get. And I dont mean mickey mouse painting, basket weaving or beauty 
therapist courses either. But thats all that seems to be on offer these 
days, so people cant progress. The education system does not supply 
worthwhile courses that allow people to earn a decent living.

Niteawk wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:1194870437.126358.31530@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On 12 Nov, 11:19, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:1194817014.249098.156830@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > On Nov 10, 5:15 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On 10 Nov, 16:25, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > Is it a lot better? I'm not so sure.
> >>
> >> > And if people haven't the skills, why not give the chance to get them> >> Yes, I have often wondered why people are kept down in this country, but
> >> kept down we are, there is no network available via any medium for people
> >> who want to better themselves, gain new job related skills in any
> >> industry,
> >> trade or profession. If you are not born into it you are fucked.
> >>
> >
> > Kept down? Yes. By themselves.
> > No-one else is responsible for getting you skills but you.
> >
> > Funny really, besides working for employers and gaining skills,
> > there's volunteering, joining the TA, paying for training courses,
> > doing cheap or free training courses, books, speakers, practical
> > demonstrations, have a go demonstrations, plus getting the training
> > and taking it further yourself with the right materials.
> > Oh, and getting an education too - something not everyone chooses to
> > do even while at school.
> >
> >
> >> > Obviously because the people who benefit the most from this fucked up> >> > system don't want that.
> >>
> >> No they do not want that, its all about control, the more peasants we
> >> have
> >> the better, its mass discrimination thats what it is, forget race
> >> bullshit
> >> and political correctness and what is right, there is no law to protect> >> people from poverty,
> >
> > True. And why should there be?
> > Definition of poverty is fluid, means something different to different
> > people and in different countries.
> > Here, we have a relatively rich country. Most have a place to sleep,
> > we all have regular money (albeit different amounts) and there are
> > loads of opportunities.
> > Can't recall the last time someone died of starvation here except by
> > accident or choice.
> >
> >
> > no law to say people are entitled to progress in life.
> >
> > True. People can choose to progress. Or not.
> > Its easy to progress, its even easier (by a long shot) to not.
> >
> >> No we will stick with the usual fucked up meaningless bullshit that
> >> claims
> >> to protect peoples rights as long as they cant afford a pot to piss in,> >> then
> >> its ok.
> >
> > What rights?
> > Rights are arbitary, often given but cannot be guaranteed. And can be
> > affected by decisions and actions of others.
> >
> > Martin  <><
> >
>
> Stop being pedantic Martin, you know what I am talking about. You try going
> to college, part or full time, to get a worthwhile trade and see how far you
> get. And I dont mean mickey mouse painting, basket weaving or beauty
> therapist courses either. But thats all that seems to be on offer these
> days, so people cant progress. The education system does not supply
> worthwhile courses that allow people to earn a decent living.

Yes, you can go to college even part time and pick up a skill.
I've yet to meet a sign language interpreter (and I've worked with
several) who didn't study for it in their spare time. Fees charged
tend to be £20/hour or more - and minimum time booked (often 2 hours
but can be longer for distance). Still a major shortage, last I
looked.

Or how about garden work? Horticultural qualifications available - and
can switch careers into gardens with that.

I'm talking about qualifications in actual skills, plus simply
academic qualifications (GCSE, a-levels and NVQ to a certain level)
that help with jobs that otherwise wouldn't consider someone.

Even painting and decorating can be useful - I've done that one myself
and I'm crap at DIY. But can now at least save money by decorating my
own house, and could (if I was daft enough) get a job doing it for
someone else.
I'm working on my professional qualification at the moment
(Certificate in Fundraising management) through the open university -
for free. Lot of hard work, taking me about 15 hours a week - but will
allow for the higher paid jobs in my rather specialist field, plus
self employment or consultancy work.

The government can provide the opportunity to get skills and
qualifications. What they can't do is wave a wand and give you them.
Have to do some hard work, often quite a bit of time too - to take
advantage of the opportunity.
But for many people its much easier to sit down and watch the babble
box, or go to the pub rather than get additional skills or
qualifications.

The oppportunities are there - no-one is forced to take them (yet!).

Martin  <><

Niteawk wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:1194870437.126358.31530@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On 12 Nov, 11:19, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:1194817014.249098.156830@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > On Nov 10, 5:15 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On 10 Nov, 16:25, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > Is it a lot better? I'm not so sure.
> >>
> >> > And if people haven't the skills, why not give the chance to get them?
> >>
> >> Yes, I have often wondered why people are kept down in this country, but
> >> kept down we are, there is no network available via any medium for people
> >> who want to better themselves, gain new job related skills in any
> >> industry,
> >> trade or profession. If you are not born into it you are fucked.
> >>
> >
> > Kept down? Yes. By themselves.
> > No-one else is responsible for getting you skills but you.
> >
> > Funny really, besides working for employers and gaining skills,
> > there's volunteering, joining the TA, paying for training courses,
> > doing cheap or free training courses, books, speakers, practical
> > demonstrations, have a go demonstrations, plus getting the training
> > and taking it further yourself with the right materials.
> > Oh, and getting an education too - something not everyone chooses to
> > do even while at school.
> >
> >
> >> > Obviously because the people who benefit the most from this fucked up
> >> > system don't want that.
> >>
> >> No they do not want that, its all about control, the more peasants we
> >> have
> >> the better, its mass discrimination thats what it is, forget race
> >> bullshit
> >> and political correctness and what is right, there is no law to protect
> >> people from poverty,
> >
> > True. And why should there be?
> > Definition of poverty is fluid, means something different to different
> > people and in different countries.
> > Here, we have a relatively rich country. Most have a place to sleep,
> > we all have regular money (albeit different amounts) and there are
> > loads of opportunities.
> > Can't recall the last time someone died of starvation here except by
> > accident or choice.
> >
> >
> > no law to say people are entitled to progress in life.
> >
> > True. People can choose to progress. Or not.
> > Its easy to progress, its even easier (by a long shot) to not.
> >
> >> No we will stick with the usual fucked up meaningless bullshit that
> >> claims
> >> to protect peoples rights as long as they cant afford a pot to piss in,
> >> then
> >> its ok.
> >
> > What rights?
> > Rights are arbitary, often given but cannot be guaranteed. And can be
> > affected by decisions and actions of others.
> >
> > Martin  <><
> >
>
> Stop being pedantic Martin, you know what I am talking about. You try going
> to college, part or full time, to get a worthwhile trade and see how far you
> get. And I dont mean mickey mouse painting, basket weaving or beauty
> therapist courses either. But thats all that seems to be on offer these
> days, so people cant progress. The education system does not supply
> worthwhile courses that allow people to earn a decent living.


Come to think of it, the education system in schools seems to
emphasise the wrong things.
Anyone here learn about personal finance in school? Only applicable
and useful the rest of your life. Loans, cards, mortages, savings,
debt, assets - seems like everyone uses some.
I've heard some schools are starting to include some of that now -
rather more useful to more people than sine, cosine and tangents in
maths......

Seems like 'how to pass tests' doesn't have a lot of impact on how to
actually work once you have a job. Some employers aren't happy at
having to do remedial training to bring people up to speed.

Or how about how to safely change a plug, safely switch fuses when a
fuse blows in the mains, how to clear a blocked sink and so on. Minor
things that can save a fortune. Should be taught in school  perhaps?
Ideally, the school should be only part of the education process. But
its the start and end of the education for many.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:3f90a15c-c1b1-473f-bc2a-3b06168cfc81@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Niteawk wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>> news:1194870437.126358.31530@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> > On 12 Nov, 11:19, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> >>  wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> news:1194817014.249098.156830@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >> > On Nov 10, 5:15 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On 10 Nov, 16:25, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Is it a lot better? I'm not so sure.
>> >>
>> >> > And if people haven't the skills, why not give the chance to get 
>> >> > them?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I have often wondered why people are kept down in this country, 
>> >> but
>> >> kept down we are, there is no network available via any medium for 
>> >> people
>> >> who want to better themselves, gain new job related skills in any
>> >> industry,
>> >> trade or profession. If you are not born into it you are fucked.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Kept down? Yes. By themselves.
>> > No-one else is responsible for getting you skills but you.
>> >
>> > Funny really, besides working for employers and gaining skills,
>> > there's volunteering, joining the TA, paying for training courses,
>> > doing cheap or free training courses, books, speakers, practical
>> > demonstrations, have a go demonstrations, plus getting the training
>> > and taking it further yourself with the right materials.
>> > Oh, and getting an education too - something not everyone chooses to
>> > do even while at school.
>> >
>> >
>> >> > Obviously because the people who benefit the most from this fucked 
>> >> > up
>> >> > system don't want that.
>> >>
>> >> No they do not want that, its all about control, the more peasants we
>> >> have
>> >> the better, its mass discrimination thats what it is, forget race
>> >> bullshit
>> >> and political correctness and what is right, there is no law to 
>> >> protect
>> >> people from poverty,
>> >
>> > True. And why should there be?
>> > Definition of poverty is fluid, means something different to different
>> > people and in different countries.
>> > Here, we have a relatively rich country. Most have a place to sleep,
>> > we all have regular money (albeit different amounts) and there are
>> > loads of opportunities.
>> > Can't recall the last time someone died of starvation here except by
>> > accident or choice.
>> >
>> >
>> > no law to say people are entitled to progress in life.
>> >
>> > True. People can choose to progress. Or not.
>> > Its easy to progress, its even easier (by a long shot) to not.
>> >
>> >> No we will stick with the usual fucked up meaningless bullshit that
>> >> claims
>> >> to protect peoples rights as long as they cant afford a pot to piss 
>> >> in,
>> >> then
>> >> its ok.
>> >
>> > What rights?
>> > Rights are arbitary, often given but cannot be guaranteed. And can be
>> > affected by decisions and actions of others.
>> >
>> > Martin  <><
>> >
>>
>> Stop being pedantic Martin, you know what I am talking about. You try 
>> going
>> to college, part or full time, to get a worthwhile trade and see how far 
>> you
>> get. And I dont mean mickey mouse painting, basket weaving or beauty
>> therapist courses either. But thats all that seems to be on offer these
>> days, so people cant progress. The education system does not supply
>> worthwhile courses that allow people to earn a decent living.
>
>
> Come to think of it, the education system in schools seems to
> emphasise the wrong things.
> Anyone here learn about personal finance in school? Only applicable
> and useful the rest of your life. Loans, cards, mortages, savings,
> debt, assets - seems like everyone uses some.
> I've heard some schools are starting to include some of that now -
> rather more useful to more people than sine, cosine and tangents in
> maths......

Unless you have the money to go private the education system in this country 
amounts to little more than teaching kids to read and write, and in a vast 
proportion of cases they fail to even deliver this basic requirement.



>
> Seems like 'how to pass tests' doesn't have a lot of impact on how to
> actually work once you have a job. Some employers aren't happy at
> having to do remedial training to bring people up to speed.

Thats another story, the days of apprentiships are long gone, to many 
skilled migrant workers to choose from, funny how peasant countries like 
Poland can churn out thousands of skilled workers, yet here in the UK we 
barely manage to teach kids to read and write.


>
> Or how about how to safely change a plug, safely switch fuses when a
> fuse blows in the mains, how to clear a blocked sink and so on. Minor
> things that can save a fortune. Should be taught in school  perhaps?
> Ideally, the school should be only part of the education process. But
> its the start and end of the education for many.
>

Practical skills could be thought but teachers have to follow the curriculum 
as dictated by the government, as long as they can identify a sweeping 
brush, that will do.

And if you want to progress beyond this at a later stage in life as most 
people do, there is no worthwhile further education available.

Case in point, show me where I can enroll in a part or full time course to 
fully qualify as a plumber.

On 16 Nov, 07:40, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:3f90a15c-c1b1-473f-bc2a-3b06168cfc81@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Niteawk wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
> >>news:1194870437.126358.31530@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On 12 Nov, 11:19, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >> >>  wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:1194817014.249098.156830@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Nov 10, 5:15 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> On 10 Nov, 16:25, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> >> >> > Is it a lot better? I'm not so sure.
>
> >> >> > And if people haven't the skills, why not give the chance to get
> >> >> > them?
>
> >> >> Yes, I have often wondered why people are kept down in this country,
> >> >> but
> >> >> kept down we are, there is no network available via any medium for
> >> >> people
> >> >> who want to better themselves, gain new job related skills in any
> >> >> industry,
> >> >> trade or profession. If you are not born into it you are fucked.
>
> >> > Kept down? Yes. By themselves.
> >> > No-one else is responsible for getting you skills but you.
>
> >> > Funny really, besides working for employers and gaining skills,
> >> > there's volunteering, joining the TA, paying for training courses,
> >> > doing cheap or free training courses, books, speakers, practical
> >> > demonstrations, have a go demonstrations, plus getting the training
> >> > and taking it further yourself with the right materials.
> >> > Oh, and getting an education too - something not everyone chooses to
> >> > do even while at school.
>
> >> >> > Obviously because the people who benefit the most from this fucked
> >> >> > up
> >> >> > system don't want that.
>
> >> >> No they do not want that, its all about control, the more peasants we
> >> >> have
> >> >> the better, its mass discrimination thats what it is, forget race
> >> >> bullshit
> >> >> and political correctness and what is right, there is no law to
> >> >> protect
> >> >> people from poverty,
>
> >> > True. And why should there be?
> >> > Definition of poverty is fluid, means something different to different
> >> > people and in different countries.
> >> > Here, we have a relatively rich country. Most have a place to sleep,
> >> > we all have regular money (albeit different amounts) and there are
> >> > loads of opportunities.
> >> > Can't recall the last time someone died of starvation here except by
> >> > accident or choice.
>
> >> > no law to say people are entitled to progress in life.
>
> >> > True. People can choose to progress. Or not.
> >> > Its easy to progress, its even easier (by a long shot) to not.
>
> >> >> No we will stick with the usual fucked up meaningless bullshit that
> >> >> claims
> >> >> to protect peoples rights as long as they cant afford a pot to piss
> >> >> in,
> >> >> then
> >> >> its ok.
>
> >> > What rights?
> >> > Rights are arbitary, often given but cannot be guaranteed. And can be
> >> > affected by decisions and actions of others.
>
> >> > Martin  <><
>
> >> Stop being pedantic Martin, you know what I am talking about. You try
> >> going
> >> to college, part or full time, to get a worthwhile trade and see how far
> >> you
> >> get. And I dont mean mickey mouse painting, basket weaving or beauty
> >> therapist courses either. But thats all that seems to be on offer these
> >> days, so people cant progress. The education system does not supply
> >> worthwhile courses that allow people to earn a decent living.
>
> > Come to think of it, the education system in schools seems to
> > emphasise the wrong things.
> > Anyone here learn about personal finance in school? Only applicable
> > and useful the rest of your life. Loans, cards, mortages, savings,
> > debt, assets - seems like everyone uses some.
> > I've heard some schools are starting to include some of that now -
> > rather more useful to more people than sine, cosine and tangents in
> > maths......
>
> Unless you have the money to go private the education system in this country
> amounts to little more than teaching kids to read and write, and in a vast
> proportion of cases they fail to even deliver this basic requirement.
>
>
>
> > Seems like 'how to pass tests' doesn't have a lot of impact on how to
> > actually work once you have a job. Some employers aren't happy at
> > having to do remedial training to bring people up to speed.
>
> Thats another story, the days of apprentiships are long gone, to many
> skilled migrant workers to choose from, funny how peasant countries like
> Poland can churn out thousands of skilled workers, yet here in the UK we
> barely manage to teach kids to read and write.
>
>
>
> > Or how about how to safely change a plug, safely switch fuses when a
> > fuse blows in the mains, how to clear a blocked sink and so on. Minor
> > things that can save a fortune. Should be taught in school  perhaps?
> > Ideally, the school should be only part of the education process. But
> > its the start and end of the education for many.
>
> Practical skills could be thought but teachers have to follow the curriculum
> as dictated by the government, as long as they can identify a sweeping
> brush, that will do.
>
> And if you want to progress beyond this at a later stage in life as most
> people do, there is no worthwhile further education available.
>
> Case in point, show me where I can enroll in a part or full time course to
> fully qualify as a plumber.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I work in Walsall in the West Midlands so I'll look for courses
close to me.
Oh look, the local college do them.

Level 1 course is 2 evenings a week or a Saturday, level 2 courses
starting soon. C&G qualifications any good to you?

As I recall, a couple of years back a university lecturer from
Birmingham switched jobs from lecturer to plumber as the pay was
several times better and the hours could be chosen.
There are still apprenticeships for adults, besides the more formal
qualifications.

I'm not a big fan of the learning and skills council but they do pay
for a load of courses.
Once you have gained your 6129 and 6089 NVQ level 2 you are classified
as a qualified plumber. Though there are further specialisations that
can be done, with additional skills meaning wider variety of work can
be done.

That sort of course good enough for you?

Even private education in this country isn't brilliant. My school was
private, had similar problems to state schools. Just our class sizes
were smaller and exam results tended to have more passes. Doesn't mean
a thing about learning stuff though - while my mates in state school
were learning metalwork, car maintenance, cooking and electronics - my
school offered woodwork or art.

Be interesting to see what effect these new acadamies will have - too
soon yet to see what total effect they will have, with a load of money
chucked at them and (in theory) the best staff.

Martin  <><

On Nov 11, 9:54 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On 11 Nov, 21:36, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 5:15 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 10 Nov, 16:25, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 10, 1:51 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 10 Nov, 13:12, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Not so. All your JSA Agreement specifies is the minimum number
> > > > > > > of jobs you need apply for in those fields agreed between yourself
> > > > > > > and your JSA advisor at your last review, which should havetaken
> > > > > > > place within the last six months.
>
> > > > > > no, you have to set out three agreed types of work (by agreed, they
> > > > > > have to be types the JC recognise and accept, regardless ow what they
> > > > > > are or what you have done).
>
> > > > > > > You are quite free to pursue as many additional leads as you like
> > > > > > > in other fields providing you satisfy the above requirement.
>
> > > > > > YOu miss the point; why should i be penalised because the only work
> > > > > > available or that i choose to look for, if you like, is different from
> > > > > > that which i have agreed? Why should my efforts be invalidated and
> > > > > > neutered just ebcause of an abritrary rule?
>
> > > > > > > The question also arises as to why you agreed to search for work
> > > > > > > in a particular field in the first place, in consultation with your
> > > > > > > JSA advisor, if you then decide you want to pursue something entirely
> > > > > > > different afterwards.
>
> > > > > > For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
> > > > > > only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
> > > > > > what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
> > > > > > MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
> > > > > > made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
> > > > > > really).
>
> > > > > > > The requirement is in place in order to prevent claimants from pursuing
> > > > > > > vacancies in fields wher they have no possibilty of gaining employment,
> > > > > > > as a means of circumventing the JSA conditions. Whereby its necessary
> > > > > > > for claimants to convince their JSA advisor that they have a realisitic
> > > > > > > possibility of finding work in a particular area.
>
> > > > > > Why hsould it be something that i have no possibility of gaining
> > > > > > employment in? That's another of their arbitrary decisions. it stupid.
> > > > > > why should i be forced into a meaningless minimum wage casual job that
> > > > > > doesn't benefit society at all (other than the pittance i might pay in
> > > > > > taxes - i say might because if you include working tax credits also
> > > > > > then chances are your contribution is 0). What good does that approach
> > > > > > do anyone?
>
> > > > > Well, its one incentive for you to find a better job quickly.
> > > > > Whereas the JC objective isn't to find you a better job, its to get
> > > > > you off benefit. The minimum wage casual job might not be what you
> > > > > want - but when has that ever mattered in terms of benefit?
>
> > > > > What you declare you NEED is a job. Finding one that meets your
> > > > > financial requirements, longevity requirements and time requirements
> > > > > isn't part of their objectives.
>
> > > > > Martin  <><
>
> > > > Indeed.
>
> > > > That however is the problem. Forcing people to take the crap they
> > > > advertise (its not as if the JC canvas for work either) is really not
> > > > a good plan for society.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Oh its good for society. Gets people off benefit, gets vacancies
> > > filled, gets work done. Work gets done, wages and tax credits get
> > > paid, goods and services are purchased and so on.
> > > Just not good for the individual who wants something better.
> > > Still, no-one forces companies to advertise through the jobcentre. Its
> > > cheap, its easy, but you do get some people applying who haven't a
> > > chance of getting the job.
>
> > > Like it or not, we do need some jobs doing as a society. Pay might be
> > > crap (though considerably better than before NMW) but for many it is a
> > > lot better than being stuck on benefit the rest of their life.
> > > Some cannot afford to come off benefit for any job, and some don't
> > > have the skills (and won't try and get them) to get higher paid jobs.
>
> > > Martin  <><
>
> > Is it a lot better? I'm not so sure.
>
> > And if people haven't the skills, why not give the chance to get them?
>
> They do have the chance to get them. Just most don't take the chance.
> For some skills, much easier to get while in a job. Others require
> lots of time and effort.
>
> Hell, its easy to get even a library card but seems like much of the
> population don't even want that.
> Some skills can be started from books.  :)
>
>
>
> > Obviously because the people who benefit the most from this fucked up
> > system don't want that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The people who benefit most? Would that be the ones paying out for
> others? Or the ones getting the money and not having to do as much for
> it as others?
> We have a crap benefits system. Though somewhat better than no
> benefits system, at least for those who cannot work.
>
> Martin  <><

you can't get the skills if you can't get the training.

> They cant make you apply for a job you do not want, yes I know, I am opening
> up a can of worms again. It works like this, they sanction you for refusing
> a job you do not want because its stated in an agreement made by them, not
> you, you were forced to sign it. You then go to tribunal and explain you
> refused on mental health grounds etc, case is decided in your favour. They
> will never admit to forcing people to perform tasks that can potentially
> make them mentally ill for whatever reason. Thats step one in fighting for
> your rights, but it usually does not get that far.
>
I'm sorry, i really don't mean to be rude but I really think this is
bollocks. There is no way the tribunal people (don't forget at this
point you're monmey has already been stoppped and you may well have to
wait weeks for a hearing) are just going to believe you have mental
health problems without you proving it when you have said nothing
prior or proved nothing.

And you aren't being forced to sign the agreement, it's just part of
the conditions for claiming JSA (unfortunately). No way will they ever
agree it was done under duress.

> And before you ask, I have been here as well. Its seems to me that you are
> not listening when it comes to making your JSAg, pay particular attention to
> the word AGREEMENT, they cannot dictate the agreement to you, otherwise it
> is not an agreement in law, you cannot be forced to comply to make an
> agreement for it ceases to be an agreement there and then, and if they use
> threats to make you sign, you make it clear that you want to complain.
> Any such agreement made in this manner is not worth the paper its written on
> and they know it. YOU must make it clear to them what you are prepared to do
> to find work, within reason that is. They will argue against your proposals
> every time without fail, but its up to you to AGREE the terms that are
> practical and suitable for you.
>
It's not a question of not listening, but a question of fact. Indeed
they cannot dicate the agreement to you, but in order to claim JSA you
have to agree to the conditions. If you think that you have any legal
case to make in claiming you are doing this under duress you are going
to get nowhere trying to prove it.

> There is such a thing as health and safety regs, they cannot force you to do
> something that you feel is affecting your health and general state of mind,
> causing you anxiety etc, tell them if they force this shit on you - you will
> have to claim Income Support, then see your doctor and get a letter
> explaining that you are being subjected to mental cruelty, and under threat
> of being left without money for food because you cant cope with their
> excessive and unreasonable demands. All you want to do is be allowed to look
> for jobs which you feel you can cope with, and that is all they should
> expect from you.
>
and what proof will you have that this is affectiing your state of
mind?

> Whenever I was told to make a JSAg, reviewing the JSAg as its know, If it
> was dictated to me I always pointed out that I did not agree with it. If
> they put what I was prepared to do to find work, then fine I signed it no
> problem. There is a section in the JSAg that allows you to have your say,
> the part they like you to leave blank, I always write in there, "Will apply
> for any job that I consider myself capable of doing", or "Signed under
> duress" They wont give me a JSAg now.
>
Which means you won't get any money.

On Nov 14, 7:57 pm, Punter  wrote:
> >> > > > > For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
> >> > > > > only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
> >> > > > > what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
> >> > > > > MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
> >> > > > > made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
> >> > > > > really).
>
> .
>
> Oh  *do* give the location of this Jobcentre. If what you say *is* a
> fact I shall be happy to take the matter further - all I need is for
> you to provide details - if you care to, that is.
>

take the matter further how?

i was given no options for training and told, when interested in
getting financial help for training (the ECDL at the time) that i
woudl first have to pay for it myself (which was a change from what
they originally told me) then they would refund me. Impossible They
also said that doing the course during the day would impact my
availability for work (I shouldn't have to hide what i am doing if
it's legimiately heling me find work). There was no garuantee the
course would be available in the evenings because of the number of
people wanting to book times to study. When it comes to stating the
types of work you are looking for they will only accept types of work
from their list (ie work they approve of). I told them I was
interested in getting into writing/journalism (writing of any kind, in
fact, not restricting myself), they just laughed and told me that was
a 'vocation' (they certainly wouldn't complain if i was being paid for
it). So wihtout any help to get into that it will of course always be
pie in the sky.

wrote in message 
news:2f900c44-cff2-4ae4-9dfd-9a3ccc97c754@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 Nov, 07:40, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> news:3f90a15c-c1b1-473f-bc2a-3b06168cfc81@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Case in point, show me where I can enroll in a part or full time course 
>> to
>> fully qualify as a plumber.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, I work in Walsall in the West Midlands so I'll look for courses
> close to me.
> Oh look, the local college do them.
>
> Level 1 course is 2 evenings a week or a Saturday, level 2 courses
> starting soon. C&G qualifications any good to you?
>
> As I recall, a couple of years back a university lecturer from
> Birmingham switched jobs from lecturer to plumber as the pay was
> several times better and the hours could be chosen.
> There are still apprenticeships for adults, besides the more formal
> qualifications.
>
> I'm not a big fan of the learning and skills council but they do pay
> for a load of courses.
> Once you have gained your 6129 and 6089 NVQ level 2 you are classified
> as a qualified plumber. Though there are further specialisations that
> can be done, with additional skills meaning wider variety of work can
> be done.
>
> That sort of course good enough for you?
>
> Even private education in this country isn't brilliant. My school was
> private, had similar problems to state schools. Just our class sizes
> were smaller and exam results tended to have more passes. Doesn't mean
> a thing about learning stuff though - while my mates in state school
> were learning metalwork, car maintenance, cooking and electronics - my
> school offered woodwork or art.
>
> Be interesting to see what effect these new acadamies will have - too
> soon yet to see what total effect they will have, with a load of money
> chucked at them and (in theory) the best staff.
>


I have been looking for years for this type of course, I have just checked 
my local college website and now it looks like they have started offering 
proper plumbing courses, I expect I wont stand a cat in hells chance of 
getting on one of them.
Then again this might not be the case, as with the original courses they 
gave the impression that you could qualify as a plumber, but you had to have 
a job with a plumbing firm. Theres bound to be some catch. I cant see it 
running smoothly, me getting a full C&G cert and corgi registered etc. Cant 
see it happening.

As I say its only in the last couple of years they have started offering any 
plumbing courses which only covered some crap about health and safety, and 
they expected you to have a job within the plumbing industry to make up for 
the rest of your training. Fat lot of good that was.

Thanks to being stuck on New Deal this year I missed the boat again, I had 
to sit in a room looking at 4 walls at great expense to the tax payer to 
achieve fuck all as per usual. I now have to wait until next September, 
Bollocks. Fuck em, it really makes me angry that they will not say right, 
fuck off and do whatever course you want to get a real job. Its because of 
the jobcentres attitude trying to force me into low paid demeaning jobs I 
have been out of work for years.
Thanks to the Jobcentre it looks like I will end up getting the state 
pension before I get a job.

I heard on the news today that british people cant get work because of 
migrants with skills are taking all the jobs, of course the migrants are 
getting all the jobs, the fucking countries they come from have proper 
education systems.

wrote in message 
news:bf7cf203-a203-4462-b019-b1d0e63cb639@41g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> They cant make you apply for a job you do not want, yes I know, I am 
>> opening
>> up a can of worms again. It works like this, they sanction you for 
>> refusing
>> a job you do not want because its stated in an agreement made by them, 
>> not
>> you, you were forced to sign it. You then go to tribunal and explain you
>> refused on mental health grounds etc, case is decided in your favour. 
>> They
>> will never admit to forcing people to perform tasks that can potentially
>> make them mentally ill for whatever reason. Thats step one in fighting 
>> for
>> your rights, but it usually does not get that far.
>>
> I'm sorry, i really don't mean to be rude but I really think this is
> bollocks. There is no way the tribunal people (don't forget at this
> point you're monmey has already been stoppped and you may well have to
> wait weeks for a hearing) are just going to believe you have mental
> health problems without you proving it when you have said nothing
> prior or proved nothing.

The fact that you neglected to inform them of that fact should go in your 
favour, so what if they stop your money, you claim hardship payment so you 
lose a few quid while you are waiting to go to tribunal. You need to be able 
to sort yourself out, you must take steps to cover yourself, you dont wait 
until the arse falls out of your world before you decide to do something 
about it. You seem to have some intelligence, try using it the next time you 
vist your JC.


>
> And you aren't being forced to sign the agreement, it's just part of
> the conditions for claiming JSA (unfortunately). No way will they ever
> agree it was done under duress.

If it was simply a condition as you put it, all they would do is slap a 
piece of paper in your mush and tell you to get on your bike. If you sit 
there like a lemon being dictated to then you get what you deserve, you end 
up stuck with an agreement you are not happy with.
You are perfectly entitled to argue the terms of the agreement, thats why 
its called an agreement. Thats why they have to go through this procedure. 
The condition being you must make an agreement, there is a subtle 
difference.



>
>> And before you ask, I have been here as well. Its seems to me that you 
>> are
>> not listening when it comes to making your JSAg, pay particular attention 
>> to
>> the word AGREEMENT, they cannot dictate the agreement to you, otherwise 
>> it
>> is not an agreement in law, you cannot be forced to comply to make an
>> agreement for it ceases to be an agreement there and then, and if they 
>> use
>> threats to make you sign, you make it clear that you want to complain.
>> Any such agreement made in this manner is not worth the paper its written 
>> on
>> and they know it. YOU must make it clear to them what you are prepared to 
>> do
>> to find work, within reason that is. They will argue against your 
>> proposals
>> every time without fail, but its up to you to AGREE the terms that are
>> practical and suitable for you.
>>
> It's not a question of not listening, but a question of fact. Indeed
> they cannot dicate the agreement to you, but in order to claim JSA you
> have to agree to the conditions. If you think that you have any legal
> case to make in claiming you are doing this under duress you are going
> to get nowhere trying to prove it.

If you want to fuck them up, make a list of the jobs you want to apply for 
and stick to it. They will try like buggery to widen the scope of the 
agreement to include every crap job going, and they can only do that if you 
agree to it. You are not breaking any rules by stating that you are looking 
for x jobs as per the JSAg.
Bottom line, you are looking for work, end of.


>
>> There is such a thing as health and safety regs, they cannot force you to 
>> do
>> something that you feel is affecting your health and general state of 
>> mind,
>> causing you anxiety etc, tell them if they force this shit on you - you 
>> will
>> have to claim Income Support, then see your doctor and get a letter
>> explaining that you are being subjected to mental cruelty, and under 
>> threat
>> of being left without money for food because you cant cope with their
>> excessive and unreasonable demands. All you want to do is be allowed to 
>> look
>> for jobs which you feel you can cope with, and that is all they should
>> expect from you.
>>
> and what proof will you have that this is affectiing your state of
> mind?

I am sure if you are wound up enough about it your doctor will sign you off 
due to stress. I had to go to my GP thanks to the JC asking me to prove I am 
not well or fit enough for certain types of manual labour. Of course now no 
employer is going to hire me due to my medical history. Its the one question 
all employers ask ;) In a way the JC defeated themselves, they cant force me 
to apply for any job I consider that I might not be able to do due to 
fitness.


>
>> Whenever I was told to make a JSAg, reviewing the JSAg as its know, If it
>> was dictated to me I always pointed out that I did not agree with it. If
>> they put what I was prepared to do to find work, then fine I signed it no
>> problem. There is a section in the JSAg that allows you to have your say,
>> the part they like you to leave blank, I always write in there, "Will 
>> apply
>> for any job that I consider myself capable of doing", or "Signed under
>> duress" They wont give me a JSAg now.
>>
> Which means you won't get any money.
>

No problem so far.

> The fact that you neglected to inform them of that fact should go in your
> favour, so what if they stop your money, you claim hardship payment so you
> lose a few quid while you are waiting to go to tribunal. You need to be able
> to sort yourself out, you must take steps to cover yourself, you dont wait
> until the arse falls out of your world before you decide to do something
> about it. You seem to have some intelligence, try using it the next time you
> vist your JC.
>
Firstly you do know that you can't claim hardship for the first two
weeks and that when your claim falls into doubt your money is stopped
there and then - regardless of how long it takes to process an appeal
(which of course isn't a guaranteed outcome). Also people are not
automatically entitled to hardship payments at all and there are
circumstances where you won't qualify for it. For instance if you are
living in the family home, you don't get it.

> If it was simply a condition as you put it, all they would do is slap a
> piece of paper in your mush and tell you to get on your bike. If you sit
> there like a lemon being dictated to then you get what you deserve, you end
> up stuck with an agreement you are not happy with.

It's not a qustion of being dictated to. If you don't pick the types
of work they allow you won't get anywhere. You seem to be labouring
under the misapprehension that they think you are entitled to JSA,
that isn't the case. The welfare state doesn't work that way anymore.
Now, if you want JSA, you have to make an agreement, and either you
pick the types of work they approve or you get nothing.

> You are perfectly entitled to argue the terms of the agreement, thats why
> its called an agreement. Thats why they have to go through this procedure.
> The condition being you must make an agreement, there is a subtle
> difference.
>
the agreement is: i will do xy and z to look for work and you will pay
me JSA.

> If you want to fuck them up, make a list of the jobs you want to apply for
> and stick to it. They will try like buggery to widen the scope of the
> agreement to include every crap job going, and they can only do that if you
> agree to it. You are not breaking any rules by stating that you are looking
> for x jobs as per the JSAg.
> Bottom line, you are looking for work, end of.

They won't try to widen the scope; after 13 weeks they WILL widen the
scope whether you like it or not. And if you don't agree to this you
get no money. Those are the rules: the search gets widened because
you've been out of work. You cannot argue with them about this because
those are the rules of the system and if you want jsa you have to
widen your search.

You seem to be suggesting that if you kick up a fuss they will change
their ways. They won't; they are playing by the rules and the rules
say widen your search. No tribunal is going to find in your favour on
that one!

> I am sure if you are wound up enough about it your doctor will sign you off
> due to stress. I had to go to my GP thanks to the JC asking me to prove I am
> not well or fit enough for certain types of manual labour. Of course now no
> employer is going to hire me due to my medical history. Its the one question
> all employers ask ;) In a way the JC defeated themselves, they cant force me
> to apply for any job I consider that I might not be able to do due to
> fitness.
>
So you get your sick note what then? Deal with the even more draconian
IB system. You cetainly won't be too ill for work in this situation in
the eyes of the IB doctors, I promise you.

And if your doctor doesn't?

Seems to me that all you are doing is making a rod for your own back
fighting a system that just isn't going to cave in because you say so.
I wish it were true, but I just don't believe it.

ghostwhistler@googlemail.com wrote:
>> The fact that you neglected to inform them of that fact should go in your
>> favour, so what if they stop your money, you claim hardship payment so you
>> lose a few quid while you are waiting to go to tribunal. You need to be able
>> to sort yourself out, you must take steps to cover yourself, you dont wait
>> until the arse falls out of your world before you decide to do something
>> about it. You seem to have some intelligence, try using it the next time you
>> vist your J