(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...It is official – the Government has succeeded with its campaign against bullying genuine claimants from claiming benefits they are legally entitled to. In a survey of the 100 most annoying things for 2008, benefit scroungers bet the Credit Crunch and Gordon Brown to the top spot.
Benefit Claimants = Benefit Scrounger?
It is largely preceived now due to pressure by the Government (such as the No ifs, no buts adverts and talks on removing the “passive receivers” although this has already been outlawed in 1996 by the Jobseekers Act 1995) that benefit claimant and benefit scrounger are used almost interchangeably these days in society.
In particular, it refers to those claiming Jobseekers Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance (which replaced Incapacity Benefit and Income Support) and Housing Allowance/Housing Benefit.
Other benefits including (but not limited to) Tax Credits, Working Tax Credits and Child Benefit are not typically used interchangeably, therefore these claimants aren’t usually thought of as scroungers.
Benefit scroungers doesn’t apply to MP’s and their expenses… obviously, for some reason.
Of course the majority of claimants are indeed genuine but because of the general attitude in society of “benefit scroungers” this survey is of some big importance to TV shows such as Benefit Busters.
The Top 20 most annoying things in 2008
2. The credit crunch
3. Tailgaters
4. Cold callers
5. People reading over your shoulder
6. Gordon Brown
7. Fiona Phillips
8. Being bloated
9. Rising fuel prices
10. Falling house prices
11. The wet summer
12. Middle lane drivers
13. Constipation
14. Bossiness
15. Slow internet connections
16. Being put on hold
17. Pregnant women smoking
18. Someone nicking your parking spot
19. Stepping in dog poo
20. Jehovah’s Witnesses
Source: http://www.andhranews.net/Intl/2008/October/4/Benefit-scroungers-67562.asp
Summary of links contained in above New Deal Scandal post
Related posts
- Save Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance
- Benefit Busters: Episode 2 Preview
- Did the Government get A4e Benefit Busters Episode 2 pulled from On Demand?
- New Deal Scandal unique visitors double after A4e featured on Benefit Busters
- Did A4e get Benefit Busters Episode 2 pulled from On Demand?
- Department for Work and Pensions: thousand bogus applications
the term “benefit scrounger” is little more the a cheap tabloid comment.unfortunately attitudes have hardened over the last twenty nine years with the famous norman tebbit “on your bike” comment in the mid eighties,it is classed as changing attitudes this has led many to borrow borrow and give the impression that they are more then they actually are. leading the way the state of society is today.divided.
of course those as well can and have been caught up in the unemployment circle of hire and fire culture.
a very depressing benefit busters 2 was shown a man who was dismissed similar to circumstances mentioned in the june blog stereotyped probably for little more the a tatoo considered to be in the wrong place, and appearance to a prospective employer. treating citizens of this country in this manner is unacceptable and is not improving a persons life as being claimed by some.
its all about trying to mould a person how they dress,do they smile give off a happy appearence/out going that is what they call job ready hence the “segregation” into groups the others will have to be leaned on to improve. back to the start of the paragraph.
the standard outlay of the new deal isnt just applying to a4e it has been in use for some years now paper bridges exe.despite being claimed as a different approach,there are abuses here and as a pubic body accountable to the government this needs to be looked at for breaches.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, what the Government forgets to realise that New Deal courses are compulsory and therefore because law states claimants and then participants have to go on it and continue attending – therefore they are liable under the Human Rights Act 1998.
It is a shame that no one took the Uk Government to the European Court of Human RIghts years ago! Would have ended this nonsense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting that ‘Pregnant women smoking’ is also on the hit list – fits nicely with bossiness.
Is this a survey that is done every year? It would be very interesting to compare trends.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah I assume it is an ongoing thing. The 2008 was done at the end of the year so the 2009 list should be available soon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cool – where is it located?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
there could be a case under the gateway to new deal,to be able to “help”. information about the new deal client is shared between parties’ signing this waves your rights to personal privacy in the jobs applied for,this could be classed as signing under duress at the job centre, typically while on new deal if you attend an interview, the employer then gets a call asking about the interview,this is why you are told to leave a business card or similar in the folder a member of the staff later uses for the contact details. this i personally felt this made me look and feel stupid placed under the spotlight and used as a reason to be treated badly for little more reason then not getting the job in the providers attitude,regardless of my suitabilities experience exe.
there is something just not right for locking people in a room for 39 hours a week for no more reason then being an unemployed person and the program highlighted this with nothing to do once basic job search was completed,with benefit sanctions threatened this is little more then detention under duress.
illnesses like flu/colds exe are very common as people are forced to attend as little room for time off is given,this makes the person feel mistreated and quietly complain to other people frightened to complain to the provider.
certainly i will say that be careful what you are signing at the job centre,read thoroughly first check for unexplained changes that could be noticed later in job seekers agreements exe,and if new deal comes to me again i will be very wary of waving rights again to anyone.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefit-busters
there were some interesting personal comments left on the channel 4 site along with episode 2 on thursday night after transmission for some reason it appears to be missing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I always thought an interview for a job was private and confidential
i applied for a job with a well known supermarket and didnt get the job(no interview just rejection letter) when i phoned to find out why i wasnt considered they wouldnt tell me over the phone and to write in yet some new deal prat can phone the same employer to enquire about a nd clients interview and on the basis of the reply can then decide whether to sanction their benefit or not because they werent considered for the job its hardly fair that the client didnt get the job is it its up to the employer who he decides is suitable for the job not a grade 2 filing clerk with new deal advisor job title any comments anyone regarding this comment?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Jobcentre Plus is a Government agency so most employers dont use common sense and think they are the police.
Some employers may be LEP so have an agreement to exchange information however typically without your knowledge in the agreement except such notification on the Job description.
Data Protection Act has an exemption for exchanging information freely for the prevention, detection or prosecution of crime; and should the employer assume that the Jobcentre is ringing up to combat fraudulent claims then they will be more than happy to help.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Several years ago I worked in a personnel department. All our jobs were advertised in the local paper, rather than the Job Centre. The Job Centre used to pick them up and enter them on their system. Periodically someone from the Job Centre would phone up wanting the name of the successful applicant. Unless the applicant had included a Job Centre introductory letter with their application I refused to give their details, citing data protection. The Job Centre person then generally became exasperated at this point saying that we usually gave that information. I replied that we had no right to give that information unless an introductory letter had been included and that if I had been the successful applicant I would be extremely annoyed if my information had been given to the Job Centre, especially if I hadn’t applied via the Job Centre. They would then back off with their tails between their legs. It was a great feeling getting one over them.
Another time, when I was claiming, I had got a job (not through the Job Centre) and when I signed on for the final time, the person signing me on entered the details of the job on to their system. When I asked why they were doing that, they replied it was to do with targets. I then said they had no right to claim credit for something they hadn’t done. The last time I started work I posted the signing on book, stating that I had started work, but omitted to say where. This affects their targets and I would suggests that everybody does this.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
the job centre have no business asking questions only is the vacancy filled if they are the main advertisers,this is what i term “dirt digging” something they are very good at, and getting employers to play along.they use this information to sanction people often improperly regarding applications’ taken on someones word.they do not print introductory letters now only a print off of the job application reasons stated to save paper.
many times i have been submitted for vacancies in the past and asked to use the phone at that point you can see the advisers face drop.they want people to go away and not apply so they can cause them problems and latter sanctions.
at one time i was told i couldnt phone from the job centre and call elsewhere.this is one of there main tools.another is trying to bully people into traveling unrealistic distances over the one hour travel time,exceeding themselves at your expense is extremely common.
you cannot trust this group they dont have the jobseekers interests at heart as we have read through abuses that are turned a blind eye too with arrogance.with only reductions on their mind at any cost.
moving on
anyone who has used the on-line job service site of late will find themselves at the directgov site instead,the jobs were posted up to two months ago,this is pointless as these have been filled,at the job centre these jobs have disappeared as you would expect,it gives the impression that rather then not return anything up to date it will gives you anything rather then nothing.an appalling service.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MPs expenses watchdog is doing a U- turn on the hiring family members & repaying profits on second homes that the tax payer paid for is know surprise. These people should be made to pay back profits that have been made on second homes & stop scrounging from taxpayers.
They are Thieves / Crooks in suits worse than benefit scrounger they get prosecuted. MPs get to say sorry when will they be accountable for their actions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i was told by a woman when signing on about a job in perth which from cupar is vary difficult to get to first bus isnt until 850am the next alternative is the train which involves waiting for a connection fair enough but travel time including waiting time is more than one and half hours travel time luckily the person didnt put me forward for the job but you have to watch them they are up to all the dodges
another ea tried to put me forward for a job working in a pet store which was outwith cupar but i have an aversion to snakes and rats and know for a fact this particular pet store chain sell rats and snakes and told him i had an avarsion to rats and snakes wonder what would have happened if i had been put forward for the job would the ea have sanctioned my benefit because i answered a question truthfully ie “how are you with handling rats and snakes” answer ” i have an aversion to rats and snakes” would this be justifiable in the eyes of the jobcentre to sanction that persons benefit i think not!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0