Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:58 pm  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

I've had to survive on vouchers before whilst I undertook job search training with a welfare to work company. It was £10 to last all week for lunches and could only be spent in certain places. On the very first day I ended up spending £5 on a modest drink, sandwich and snack deal at one of those posh coffee bars. I could have gone to Tesco's with this voucher and spread the costs over the week by spending £2 every working day but have you seen what lunchtime takeaway is at Tescos - I'd rather go a bit hungry than eat crap food which is my choice of course.

Which just goes to show the futility of the system your doing something you don't want to do, you know is pretty pointless and they are making life difficult using vouchers.

But I guess IDS would say your time spent there was a rousing success.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:04 pm  

TrinityIHC wrote:

The vouchers thing isn't really aimed at those on disability, was thinking more along the lines of child benefit being paid mostly in say food and clothing vouchers, with maybe a cash element for other ad hoc expenses such as toys, prams etc.

What about the State Pension?

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:10 pm  

The question of vouchers also raises another question: where does the government decide that you can spend them? In small local shops – of in supermarket chains? Or do you have a choice?

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:15 pm  

espanyolswan wrote:

Which just goes to show the futility of the system your doing something you don't want to do, you know is pretty pointless and they are making life difficult using vouchers.

But I guess IDS would say your time spent there was a rousing success.

A rousing success for the company where I spent the vouchers maybe

I guess I could put my experience at the posh coffee bar on my CV and make a career off the back of it. After lunch I told my fellow Flexible New Deal (IDS wasn't in power then ) comrades what my meal was like so this makes me a food critic.

Food Critic
One Lunchtime 2009

In this role food entered my mouth and it tasted all right. Was asked about it later on and told people all about it.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:18 pm  

Wouldn't vouchers cost more to distribute?

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:20 pm  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

A rousing success for the company where I spent the vouchers maybe

I guess I could put my experience at the poshcoffee bar on my CV and make a career off the back of it. After lunch I told my fellow Flexible New Deal (IDS wasn't in power then ) comrades what my meal was like so this makes me a food critic.

1700 apparently, desperate for 5 minimum wage jobs, and 3 advanced positions at Costa yesterday.
Great Britain 2013.
It nearly makes you proud!

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:20 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Wouldn't vouchers cost more to distribute?

Yes but £10m to Tory party funds from the supermarket that gets the gig.....KERRCHING!!!!!!

Or is that too cynical?????

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:23 pm  

espanyolswan wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9880720/Unemployed-mother-of-11-is-keeping-horse.html

Thanks for the link.

Seems The Telegraph have been sending their reporters to the Rupert Murdoch Memorial College for Shoite Reporting too - the outrage in that article is over the FACT that someone in receipt of state benefits can have the temerity to spend £200 of those benefits EVERY MONTH on what they call in their article "a nag".

And how do we know all this ?

Ah yes, an unknown, un-named stable hand who says "They must spend at least £200 a month on her" and even goes on to explain how she jumps to that conclusion (if indeed the unknown stable hand is a real person) by informing us that the family pay £65 a month to leave the horse in their fields and the vet visits "quite often" so thats at least £200 EVERY month then.

"They bought the horse eight months ago" she helpfully adds, "horses are expensive, I know, I've had them all my life"

But hang on, "it has breathing difficulties", so its not a horse anymore, or even a pony (which is what it looks like), its "a nag" and she bought it from a previous owner who had kept the horse in the same paddock - bought ? Are we sure she bought it , and for how much, well the unknown stable hand doesn't know that, doesn't know whether the previous owner just gave it to the family, doesn't know how much they pay to keep it there really, doesn't say how often the vet visits or how much the bills are, doesn't really tell us anything at all other than gossip.

But still, its a bloody disgrace isn't it, call the Taxpayers Alliance and see what they think, just don't ask them what they'd do about large families with parents out of work or you might find that they have an Ultimate Solution which involves these brood b1tches being force to pick just two of their litter and have the rest handed over to decent tax paying folk like you would with a litter of mongrel dogs - that'd learn 'em.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:25 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

1700 apparently, desperate for 5 minimum wage jobs, and 3 advanced positions at Costa yesterday.
Great Britain 2013.
It nearly makes you proud!

Workshy, the lot of 'em, cut their benefits !

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:25 pm  

espanyolswan wrote:

It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut child support is £20 a week and even 10 kids only gets you about £150 a week, give vouchers to 15m people or whatever the number of children (or Under 20s in full time education) is and you are creating a monster for no real reward unless as I said earlier it is tied into a big business where those vouchers have to be spent and that would be just disgraceful.

Yeah but Child Tax credits for the unemployed start at £3125pa for a single child, slightly bigger nut - this is where our football team raising jockey is getting her money from.

Him - no state pension should definitely be cash, as they are unable to work and therefore no need for the disincentive to avoid employment/reproduce ad nauseum.