Re: Work for benefits : Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:19 pm  

Course Title : How to be a Government Minister Lesson 1 : How to claim a victory from defeat Study text ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499 Case History : Your Government rushes through some hastily thought legislation which allows you to make the unemployed do free work for their benefits under threat of losing some or all of their benefits if they do not, one claimant takes you to the High Court and asks for a judgement on two issues... 1. You did not explain fully that you were not entitled in law to remove some or all of her benefits if she did not comply 2. You were using her as slave labour under Human Rights legislation The court finds in favour of the claimant for point 1 but against the claimant for point 2. You don't like this because the press give you a right slagging off, so you appeal to the Supreme Court so that both issues can be found in your favour. Unfortunately the Supreme Court agrees with the High Court and the judgements stay as they were. Your task today is to present this second slap in the face from the Supreme Court in a manner which makes it look as though you have won the appeal instead of lost it, at the public expense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the answer to this question see the linked BBC News reports and read the final few paragraphs which contain statements from two Government Ministers and a Government Department who all claim a victory despite the real fact that they lost their appeal. Next weeks lecture : How the Japanese won the war in the Pacific in 1945.

Course Title : How to be a Government Minister Lesson 1 : How to claim a victory from defeat Study text ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499 Case History : Your Government rushes through some hastily thought legislation which allows you to make the unemployed do free work for their benefits under threat of losing some or all of their benefits if they do not, one claimant takes you to the High Court and asks for a judgement on two issues... 1. You did not explain fully that you were not entitled in law to remove some or all of her benefits if she did not comply 2. You were using her as slave labour under Human Rights legislation The court finds in favour of the claimant for point 1 but against the claimant for point 2. You don't like this because the press give you a right slagging off, so you appeal to the Supreme Court so that both issues can be found in your favour. Unfortunately the Supreme Court agrees with the High Court and the judgements stay as they were. Your task today is to present this second slap in the face from the Supreme Court in a manner which makes it look as though you have won the appeal instead of lost it, at the public expense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the answer to this question see the linked BBC News reports and read the final few paragraphs which contain statements from two Government Ministers and a Government Department who all claim a victory despite the real fact that they lost their appeal. Next weeks lecture : How the Japanese won the war in the Pacific in 1945.

Re: Work for benefits : Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:42 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

...Unfortunately the Supreme Court agrees with the High Court and the judgements stay as they were...

But surely they must cut Iain Duncan Sniff some slack in case he "believes" they are wrong?

Re: Work for benefits : Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:56 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

But surely they must cut Iain Duncan Sniff some slack in case he "believes" they are wrong?

"We have always said that it was ridiculous to say that our schemes amounted to forced labour, and yet again we have won this argument," Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said.

Nice one Iain.

So let me get this straight, the High Court agrees with you earlier this year that your workfare program was not forced labour, so you put in an appeal to the Supreme Court so that they can also say that your workfare program was not forced labour ?

So Iain, in his wisdom, appealed a High Court judgment because he agreed with the High Court judgement but wanted the Supreme Court to also agree with him.

I happen to think that he is a fekkin idiot, unfortunately the way he behaves and in his press releases he also seems to think that we are all fekkin idiots too.

Re: Work for benefits : Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:03 pm  

And Ed Balls says he was still right to ignore procedure and sack Sharon Shoesmith: it's a growing culture.

Re: Work for benefits : Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:32 pm  

JerryChicken wrote: Course Title : How to be a Government Minister Lesson 1 : How to claim a victory from defeat Study text ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499 Case History : Your Government rushes through some hastily thought legislation which allows you to make the unemployed do free work for their benefits under threat of losing some or all of their benefits if they do not, one claimant takes you to the High Court and asks for a judgement on two issues... 1. You did not explain fully that you were not entitled in law to remove some or all of her benefits if she did not comply 2. You were using her as slave labour under Human Rights legislation The court finds in favour of the claimant for point 1 but against the claimant for point 2. You don't like this because the press give you a right slagging off, so you appeal to the Supreme Court so that both issues can be found in your favour. Unfortunately the Supreme Court agrees with the High Court and the judgements stay as they were. Your task today is to present this second slap in the face from the Supreme Court in a manner which makes it look as though you have won the appeal instead of lost it, at the public expense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the answer to this question see the linked BBC News reports and read the final few paragraphs which contain statements from two Government Ministers and a Government Department who all claim a victory despite the real fact that they lost their appeal. Next weeks lecture : How the Japanese won the war in the Pacific in 1945. So the outcome of this ruling is so long as the scheme is explained properly then it is totally legal. Sounds reasonable to me. Cait Reilly now works for a supermarket but apparently her work at Poundland didn't help her get the job.

JerryChicken wrote: Course Title : How to be a Government Minister Lesson 1 : How to claim a victory from defeat Study text ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24742499 Case History : Your Government rushes through some hastily thought legislation which allows you to make the unemployed do free work for their benefits under threat of losing some or all of their benefits if they do not, one claimant takes you to the High Court and asks for a judgement on two issues... 1. You did not explain fully that you were not entitled in law to remove some or all of her benefits if she did not comply 2. You were using her as slave labour under Human Rights legislation The court finds in favour of the claimant for point 1 but against the claimant for point 2. You don't like this because the press give you a right slagging off, so you appeal to the Supreme Court so that both issues can be found in your favour. Unfortunately the Supreme Court agrees with the High Court and the judgements stay as they were. Your task today is to present this second slap in the face from the Supreme Court in a manner which makes it look as though you have won the appeal instead of lost it, at the public expense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the answer to this question see the linked BBC News reports and read the final few paragraphs which contain statements from two Government Ministers and a Government Department who all claim a victory despite the real fact that they lost their appeal. Next weeks lecture : How the Japanese won the war in the Pacific in 1945. So the outcome of this ruling is so long as the scheme is explained properly then it is totally legal. Sounds reasonable to me. Cait Reilly now works for a supermarket but apparently her work at Poundland didn't help her get the job.

Re: Work for benefits : Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:43 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

So the outcome of this ruling is so long as the scheme is explained properly then it is totally legal. Sounds reasonable to me.

It should have been explained properly in the first place, incompetence and a rushing through of rulings ensured that it was badly implemented, not the first time something similar has been declared illegal by the courts either.

But you've missed my point completely, the point being the incredible gall of the politicians to completely ignore the bad news element of the ruling (they lost their appeal) and instead waffle on about the bit that they won several months ago that wasn't even part of this appeal.

They treat us like idiots, and the big problem is that there are plenty like you willing to swallow all of it, thank them, and ask for more.

Re: Work for benefits : Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:49 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

But you've missed my point completely, the point being the incredible gall of the politicians to completely ignore the bad news element of the ruling (they lost their appeal) and instead waffle on about the bit that they won several months ago that wasn't even part of this appeal.

No, politicians would never do such a thing.

Maybe if it gets your blood pressure up so much you could always ignore such stories in future. No one forces you to read quotes from politicians.

Re: Work for benefits : Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:57 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

So the outcome of this ruling is so long as the scheme is explained properly then it is totally legal. Sounds reasonable to me.

Well yes, as it is with pretty much everything a government does, if the law requires it to do so. If the law says one thing and they don't do it, they lose.

The number of times governments of whatever hue have lost cases in the courts because they don't follow what the law says beggars belief. And you me and everyone on here is paying for IDS etc to challenge these decisions because they don't/won't listen to their advisers

Re: Work for benefits : Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:18 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

No, politicians would never do such a thing.

Maybe if it gets your blood pressure up so much you could always ignore such stories in future. No one forces you to read quotes from politicians.

It must be nice in your tinky-winky world where all politicians can be accepted without question and the Daily Mail always gets the story - keep your mouth open and keep swallowing.

Re: Work for benefits : Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:23 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

It must be nice in your tinky-winky world where all politicians can be accepted without question and the Daily Mail always gets the story - keep your mouth open and keep swallowing.

Gobble gobble.

Sounds like you're suggesting that our little friend basically fellates the politicians/commentators he wants.

Perhaps that's what screws his brain and prevents him for ever actually making a constructive contribution to a thread?