Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

[spankingtexan]

Why are governments responsible for the choices parents make? No child needs to go hungry in the uk, those that do so suffer because of the activites and choices of their parents, not those of the government.

The parent who becomes to ill to work but is called a liar and stripped of benefit despite back up evidence from the GP and hospital, the parent who loses their job through no fault of their own sanctioned because they are finding it difficult to get employment and doesn't want to work for free, aren't these Government responsibilities? Government choices? not the parents.
Come on over to our parallel universe, a universe where people actually care and not on the self righteous path as in yours. Live and let live, stop blaming the poor for being poor, my choice of words may not always be right but at least I'm sincere and don't try to smack down those who are less fortunate than me, or those who find it difficult to express themselves. Your a selfish arrogant man Dolph.

 

[Dolph]

Seriously ? if the parent is unfairly sanctioned by the job centre the child goes hungry, directly on the basis of the governments policies

Define unfairly sanctioned? Most cases that seem to hit the press are about people who broke the rules but think they should be treated differently to other people who do the same thing, usually with an added appeal to emotion involving their children.

 

[Dolph]

The parent who becomes to ill to work but is called a liar and stripped of benefit, the parent who loses their job through no fault of their own sanctioned because they are finding it difficult to get employment and doesn't want to work for free, aren't these Government responsibilities? Government choices? not the parents.
Come on over to our parallel universe, a universe where people actually care and not on the self righteous path as in yours.

The first example implies that it is the government's fault that they do not take, at face value, any claim of being unable to work is true. Even the old style incapacity benefit never worked that way. It is not a fault of the system that some claims are assessed and subsequently rejected, nor does it imply the failed claimant is lying, just that their belief about their inability to work is non matched by an assessment of their abilities.

The second example you give is definitely the parents choice, in that they are refusing to comply with the conditions of the benefit.

all this conditionality is why I support a universal system as being a much better solution.

 

[Biohazard]

so I didn't say what you quoted then, and given your habit of wilful misrepresentation, I doubt that is what I said when actually taken in context...

I believe it was to Scorza, during a conversation on socialism, wealth condensation and inheritance.. apparently it's all jealousy and hate against families to have these sorts of objections.

Not remember? Or will I have to jog your memory?

 

[Biohazard]

Define unfairly sanctioned? Most cases that seem to hit the press are about people who broke the rules but think they should be treated differently to other people who do the same thing, usually with an added appeal to emotion involving their children.

Even if they broke the rules, should we indirectly be forcing children to starve if that is indeed the case?

That isn't an appeal to emotion, it's just a question before you start.

 

[Dolph]

Even if they broke the rules, should we indirectly be forcing children to starve if that is indeed the case?

That isn't an appeal to emotion, it's just a question before you start.

That is where it starts to get tricky. if parents are not taking the welfare of their children into their decision making, then should we excuse them the consequences of their decisions? or should we be looking at taking additional measures to ensure the kids grow up in a better environment...

If you start excusing people the consequences of their choices because they haven't made good ones, then ypu create moral hazard. On the flip side, taking the kids into care or similar is a terrible idea because local authority care is appaling and terrible for the child.

We perhaps need an alternative approach for people who can't or won't take personal responsibility for their choices, but what form that should take, I am not quite sure.

 

[Xordium]

But cost of provision isn't a multiple of the income of others, so you can define an absolute poverty level in terms of having enough to obtain the basics just fine (I would add that the level should not consider poor choices people may make as requiring an increase.

But that 'absolute' level is highly variable enough across areas to have a significant relative component - especially in this country where the predominate cost is 'shelter'. That is unless you want to shift all the poor to certain areas. Which has never worked out well. And if you don't trust them to make 'good' choices you should take the 'choice' away it's rather simple.

 

[Xordium]

We perhaps need an alternative approach for people who can't or won't take personal responsibility for their choices, but what form that should take, I am not quite sure.

Well in the case you describe there I feel it would be prudent to ensure that schools have adequate provisions and funding to provide decent food and the staff to support it and make school meals compulsory.

Of course the real problem families will slip through the cracks but they always will to be fair there is nothing you can do for such people. The families with children most likely to benefit from the positive aspects a school will bestow on them are the ones least likely to give a stuff about sending them to school.

 

[spankingtexan]

The first example implies that it is the government's fault that they do not take, at face value, any claim of being unable to work is true. Even the old style incapacity benefit never worked that way. It is not a fault of the system that some claims are assessed and subsequently rejected, nor does it imply the failed claimant is lying, just that their belief about their inability to work is non matched by an assessment of their abilities.

The second example you give is definitely the parents choice, in that they are refusing to comply with the conditions of the benefit.

all this conditionality is why I support a universal system as being a much better solution.

You know as well as I do atos assessments have been getting it wrong. Go look in the other thread.

Conditions of benefit where people are forced to work for free is I believe unlawful as do PIL, refusing to carry out an unlawful condition and then being punished for it is unacceptable. 500k jobs, 2.5 mil unemployed, countless ill and disabled people, more people are being punished than there are jobs.

Here's a list of unfair sanctions.

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/a-l...ous-benefit-sanctions-people-have-experienced

 

[Biohazard]

texan, I wouldn't be too concerned. Only a party line driven dogmatic apologist could try and typecast this Government as somehow being fair.

 

[Biohazard]

That is where it starts to get tricky. if parents are not taking the welfare of their children into their decision making, then should we excuse them the consequences of their decisions? or should we be looking at taking additional measures to ensure the kids grow up in a better environment...

If you start excusing people the consequences of their choices because they haven't made good ones, then ypu create moral hazard. On the flip side, taking the kids into care or similar is a terrible idea because local authority care is appaling and terrible for the child.

We perhaps need an alternative approach for people who can't or won't take personal responsibility for their choices, but what form that should take, I am not quite sure.

So, in principle, Government policy shouldn't have such negative impacts?

 

[Dolph]

You know as well as I do atos assessments have been getting it wrong. Go look in the other thread.

They do get it wrong on occasion (they got my mum's wrong) but that is why the appeals process exists. it doesn't follow that every rejection is wrong however.

Conditions of benefit where people are forced to work for free is I believe unlawful as do PIL, refusing to carry out an unlawful condition and then being punished for it is unacceptable. 500k jobs, 2.5 mil unemployed, countless ill and disabled people, more people are being punished than there are jobs.

What you believe doesn't matter as we have discussed in the past though, especially when the courts have disagreed witb you (the judgement earlier in the year concerned technicalities around implementation and specifically found the concept fine).

Here's a list of unfair sanctions.

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/a-l...ous-benefit-sanctions-people-have-experienced

I will take a look, I do hope this isn't another of your anecdotal evidence sites that just takes the stories from people with an agenda though.

 

[Dolph]

So, in principle, Government policy shouldn't have such negative impacts?

Government policy cannot mitigate the impact of personal choices without loss of freedom for those who make bad choices. How you want to handle that is the challenge.

 

[Dolph]

Well in the case you describe there I feel it would be prudent to ensure that schools have adequate provisions and funding to provide decent food and the staff to support it and make school meals compulsory.

Of course the real problem families will slip through the cracks but they always will to be fair there is nothing you can do for such people. The families with children most likely to benefit from the positive aspects a school will bestow on them are the ones least likely to give a stuff about sending them to school.

Sounds like a good approach to me.

 

[Biohazard]

Government policy cannot mitigate the impact of personal choices without loss of freedom for those who make bad choices. How you want to handle that is the challenge.

It's not all personal choice, though. Which is the real problem.

 

[spankingtexan]

They do get it wrong on occasion (they got my mum's wrong) but that is why the appeals process exists. it doesn't follow that every rejection is wrong however.



What you believe doesn't matter as we have discussed in the past though, especially when the courts have disagreed witb you (the judgement earlier in the year concerned technicalities around implementation and specifically found the concept fine).




I will take a look, I do hope this isn't another of your anecdotal evidence sites that just takes the stories from people with an agenda though.

The high courts decision found certain aspects unlawful, but the Government takes the same approach as me, instead of what I believe doesn't matter it was a case of what the courts believe don't matter to the Government, the high courts hearing isn't the be and end all though either, I do not believe the concept to be fine as do many others hence the cross appeal in the supreme court. If that fails common sense there is always the European courts.

As for your Atos response, visit the other thread, there's much more detail on how Atos operate more in favour of the DWP than the welfare of the patient, including an undercover atos examiner who was allegedly asked by the DWP if he could change a report that allowed benefit so the patient could be denied it.

 

[Dolph]

It's not all personal choice, though. Which is the real problem.

Hence why I support a universal rather than a conditonal benefits system. Removing the conditional element both ways makes it much less likely that the system gets it wrong either way because administration becomes much simpler.

 

[Biohazard]

Hence why I support a universal rather than a conditonal benefits system. Removing the conditional element both ways makes it much less likely that the system gets it wrong either way because administration becomes much simpler.

Do you believe that's where we're headed?

 

[Dolph]

Do you believe that's where we're headed?

Currently no, we seem to be heading for a more conditional system which will only increase the split between contributors and recipients.

Unfortunately, we may need to continue reforming the existing system to make the case for a complete restructure clearer.

 

[Biohazard]

Do you believe moving further from universalism will ultimately lead to universalism?