Thursday 9 August 2012

DEATH TO THE WORK PROGRAMME

DEATH TO THE WORK PROGRAMME


Forced Unpaid Labour Is Judged Lawful

UNBELIEVABLE but not surprising!

"In a decision that will make ministers breathe a huge sigh of relief and leaves campaigners against workfare raging with fury, High Court judge Justice Foskett ruled that forcing the unemployed to work for free is lawful. However, Justice Foskett did rule that stripping claimants of their benefits for refusing compulsory unpaid work was unlawful."

"Justice Foskett stated that “characterising such a scheme as involving or being analogous to ‘SLAVERY’ or ‘forced labour’ seems to me to be a long way from contemporary thinking”.

This doesn't say much for so-called 'contemporary' thinking does it! Who cares about contemporary contemptible thinking! This is evidently not thinking at all! I've never thought in the same way as most people and most definitely do not think in a contemporary manner, thank god, which presumably means NORMAL or AVERAGE, or perhaps just politically correct and cowardly to the degree that it is done consciously.

Still, I didn't really think they had much of a chance but it was well worth a try. It's always worth having a go, putting up a fight!

The only thing left now is AHIMSA-SATYA-GRAHA or NON-VIOLENT RESISTANCE in the work-place which I advocate and make organisations pay for employing 'wage-slaves'. These unemployed free labour slaves will most truly merit the name for they will not even receive a wage. In effect under WORKFARE they will be employed by the State-Government with Jobcentres as State Employment Agency's.

The Government had better make sure that the total Universal Credit (UC) payment divided by the total number of hours worked is not less than the MINIMUM WAGE ie maximum circa £6 per hour variable. There are lower rates for those under 25 years of age which is itself disgusting, being little more than a form of AGE DISCRIMINATION. Working today is becoming ever more a form of indentured servitude; WORKFARE 'working for your dole' for those on the lowest rung, and WAGE SLAVERY for all those on the higher rungs. Pathetic!

And now a famous film clip to show just how we're all in'it together!
Perhaps this could be a new entry for 'Team GB' at the next Olympics!


DEFIANCE
From the movie Ben-Hur (1959):
After his arrest Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is sent to work and die as a Roman Galley slave.
In this scene Quintus Arrius sees Ben Hur and remarks:
"Your eyes are full of hate,  forty-one.  That's good.
Hate keeps a man alive.  It gives him strength".
and thereupon proceeds to 'test' him!


I therefore advocate NON-VIOLENT RESISTANCE & CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE of the kind that does no harm to any living thing (Jainism) but may well cause damage to property. Caveat emptor, let the 'buyer' beware! The 'spanner in the works' philosophy of resistance! LAWFUL REBELLION.

Each will have to navigate a path of their own devising through this ethical minefield.

All thoese forced onto 'work for your dole' schemes should arm themselves with techniques of SUBTERFUGE, SUBVERSION, & SABOTAGE. Make sure the participating organisations pay for employing you for nothing! This applies to all, to those participating organisations be they within the Public Sector, the Third Sector, or the Private Sector! It most especially applies to the various PRIME PROVIDERS who will continue to operate behind the scenes not employing the unemployed directly. Anyone heard of A4E! These are the ones most difficult to target. They cannot be targeted from within the workplace because the unemployed will not be working for them. These PRIME PROVIDERS are little more than Government Agents of State-enforced slavery! 

What is the difference between those sentenced to working in the community under the COMMUNITY PAYBACK SCHEME and those unemployed forced to do same under WORKFARE? Those on COMMUNITY PAYBACK are definitely working in a 'Community Chain Gang' but have been found guilty of criminal behaviour and duly sentenced. Those on WORKFARE (work for your dole) have committed no crime other than being unemployed (is that a crime?) and are being sentenced to the exact same punishment. One may as well adopt a criminal lifestyle first for the punishment is identical! Nothing to lose! So what crime exactly has an unemployed person committed when sentenced to working in the community for free in seemingly exactly the same way? This is just CRIMINALISATION of the Unemployed. This is the old Victorian concept of the DESERVING and the UNDESERVING POOR without distinction! In other words all the poor are undeserving! Lets introduce some form of EUGENICS while we're at it shall we!

The Government attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of the 'contemporary' 'un-thinking' public when they try to bamboozle them with numerous variations of the same thing eg. 'Community Action Programme' and 'Work Academy Scheme'.

Spot the difference!
6 March 2012 – Government launches employment support for prisoners
"The Government is launching a major overhaul of the employment support prisoners receive when they leave jail. Everyone leaving prison and claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance benefits will be immediately referred on Day One to the Government’s Work Programme, where they will receive specialist support to get them into employment as quickly as possible."

"Britain ought to make its prisoners work in “chain gangs” to clear litter building up on the side of major public roads, a Conservative MP has said."
“In the US I have seen chain gangs out clearing highways – why can’t we do that here?” he said. “We have criminals expected to pay back – why not get them out there doing something of use?”
Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, is a supporter of short “community sentences” where people work in their neighbourhoods rather than go to prison.
He has also unveiled plans to get prisoners to work for private companies within jails in the hope of instilling a culture of “purposeful hard work”. The minister has promised to double the number of inmates working up to 40 hours per week because they are a “wasted resource”.

I wonder if either of them have realised how the exact same ideas are being applied to the unemployed!



Long Live the Revolution
Nils Carborundum Illigitimi
Love, Light & Laughter
Starlord

Tuesday 7 August 2012

FORCED VOLUNTEERING & THE WORK PROGRAMME

SLAVE LABOUR & 'WORK FOR YOUR DOLE' SCHEMES

"TAMESIDE VOLUNTEER CENTRE WILL NOT BE CO-OPERATING WITH THE WORK PROGRAMME SO LONG AS THE VOLUNTEERING ELEMENT CONTINUES TO BE COMPULSORY."

On the 27th March 2012 I sent an email to:
Sue Vickers: Director of Volunteer Centre Tameside (VCT)
Tony Okotie: CEO of Tameside 3rd Sector Coalition (T3SC)
Ben Gilchrist (T3SC Policy & Participation Manager)
Cllr. David Sweeton
Cllr. Dorothy Cartwright
Cllr. Eileen Shorrock
Cllr. Kieran Quinn (Leader of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council)

SUBJECT:
Forced Volunteering and the Work Programme - Slave labour and 'work for your dole' schemes

On the 2nd April I received reply from Tony Okotie informing me that "Sue Vickers will be responding to you on this as the Director of Volunteer Centre Tameside and partner organisation in CVAT that is leading on volunteering issues."

Community & Voluntary Action Tameside (CVAT) is the new umbrella organisation formed/forming from the merger of T3SC and VCT. Despite this ongoing merger I was surprised that Tony Okotie passed the buck to Sue Vickers. I'd hoped for a response from both organisations. Still, I am not surprised at the positive response from VCT and the avoidance by T3SC. I'd already made verbal inquries of VCT and was now seeking a written response that would confirm these positive findings.
http://www.tamesidevb.org.uk/volunteers.php

However, T3SC have not made plain their position on this issue! Yes, I fully accept that VCT are the body dealing with volunteers, but T3SC are the other Voluntary Sector Organisation in Tameside. They deal with volunteers in community groups. But because both organisations are combining forces I am concerned to know which organisations ethics will prevail! I sincerely hope it will be VCT! T3SC have largely remained silent on the matter. I've criticised T3SC on many matters and there seeming lack of bottle! I begin to wonder if the organisation has any guts at all!

Now follows the positive response received from Volunteer Centre Tameside which contains excerpts from my original email which you can read in full immediately after this email from Sue Vickers, the Director of Volunteer Centre Tameside and acting on behalf of CVAT.


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:04 AM
From: Sue Vickers
To: Steve Starlord; Tony Okotie (T3SC)
Cc: Derek Pattison (TUWA); Katy Robinson; Ben Stoddard (VCT)
Subject: Work Programme




Volunteer Centre Tameside,
95-97 Penny Meadow,
Ashton-under-Lyne,
OL6 6EP.

Dear Starlord,

I am sorry for the delay in replying to your email. At a meeting of the VCT board last year it was agreed that the organisation would only engage with the work programme (JobCentre+ and prime/sub-contractors) if the “volunteering” element was truly optional and was not a mandatory  position.

VCT would agree with your statement
"I am very concerned about this Government's anti-volunteering strategy under the WORK PROGRAMME where the DWP/Jobcentre's and Prime Providers and sub-Prime providers/contractors will be forcing/coercing many of the unemployed, especially the young under 25-year-olds, into working for Private sector and Third Sector and Public Sector organisations - ie what are fast becoming known as 'work for your dole' schemes."
VCT have actively campaigned through our National organisation “Volunteering England”  against the use of volunteering and volunteers in this work programme.

Can your organisation give assurances that they WILL NOT be co-operating with this scheme.
Yes, I can give assurances that we will not be co-operating  with the Work programme as long as the Volunteering element continues to be compulsory.

When this is enforced slave labour and 'work for your dole' such as unemployed community chain gangs, then this is completely unacceptable. Do you agree?
Yes, I agree.

How will you differentiate between volunteers who come to you freely of their own volition, and those volunteers referred to you from the Jobcentre or one of their brethren?
We have developed our own ways of differentiating between prospective volunteers. Those who have been sent by the Job Centre are given a letter to take back to the Job Centre explaining our position.

Please see below copies of letters from Volunteering England and Chris Grayling MP.
[Though she says letters I found but a single letter appended.]

I hope this provides adequate response to your questions.
Regards
Sue Vickers on behalf of CVAT



21 October 2011
Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP
Minister for Work and Pensions
Department for Work and Pensions
Caxton House
Tothill Street
London
SW1H 9DA. 

Dear Mr Grayling

Work Programme

I am writing to you regarding the practice of a Work Programme prime provider that has recently been brought to my attention. One of our members was approached by a private sector provider and asked to provide volunteers to help deliver one of its projects to prepare clients for employment.

We are concerned about this because we believe that volunteers should never be considered as ‘free labour’ or a replacement for paid staff. They have a unique role in adding value, complementing the work of employees and bringing benefits to the community. In this case, the organisation seems to be seeking to involve volunteers for no other reason than to reduce its costs.

The involvement of volunteers in this way has the potential to undermine the unique value of volunteering and damage the image of volunteering at a time when it has a higher profile than ever. I would appreciate knowing your thoughts on this issue.

We were made aware of this latest development during the course of investigations into reports that some Work Programme providers are directing their clients to Volunteer Centres without any prior approach or formal relationship in place. We recently briefed Gareth Davies at the Office for Civil Society on this matter, and I have enclosed the briefing for your information.

Yours sincerely
Mike Locke
Senior Policy & Information Manager



Briefing on Work Programme and Work Together

Work Programme

1. A number of Volunteer Centres have responded to approaches from Work Programme providers (or their clients) by speaking to the provider about establishing a formal contractual relationship for support and brokerage. In many cases the provider has been unwilling to enter into such a relationship, hoping to send their clients to the Volunteer Centre for free.

2. Volunteer Centres exist to support anyone who is interested in volunteering. However, greater resource is required to support someone who does not have an interest in volunteering but believes they have been told they must volunteer. As with Jobcentre Plus referrals, they are less likely to be volunteering ready, requiring one-to-one support and training.

3. Some Volunteer Centres have expressed surprise that Work Programme providers are advising their clients to seek their services without an associated payment when the providers will be paid for helping someone back into work. They are concerned that this is not in line with the DWP Merlin Standards.

4. This situation must be seen in the light of other developments that are having an impact on Volunteer Centres. Many have seen their funding decrease and enquires rise. 12 of 15 Volunteer Centres recently visited said that they have seen an increase in referrals from Jobcentre Plus.

5. Volunteering England is concerned that an unwillingness on the part of Work Programme providers to enter into a contractual relationship in these cases could  
  • a. have a negative impact on the image of the Get Britain Working initiative;  
  • b. undermine the work that has been done between DWP, OCS, Jobcentre Plus and Volunteer Centres prior to and as a result of Work Together; and  
  • c. breach the conditions of the DWP Merlin Standards.  

Merlin Standards

6. Volunteering England asked its contacts at DWP for an opinion on whether or not this represents a breach of the Merlin Standards. DWP said that as Merlin is an independently assessed standard, it would not be appropriate for it to pre-judge the assessments that will be carried out within the next year.

7. Under the Merlin Standards, a prime contractor must demonstrate “that its procurement processes are fair and transparent” and “that funding arrangements are fair, proportionate and do not cause undue financial risk for supply chain partners”. It is clear that Work Programme providers see Volunteer Centres as useful in meeting the objectives for which they will be remunerated under their DWP contract.

8. Volunteering England is investigating ways in which feedback from Volunteer Centres can be fed into the Marlin Standards assessment process.


Work Programme prospectus

9. There may be a distinction between Work Programme clients being merely signposted – rather than referred - by their adviser to Volunteer Centres as a potential source of support. However, the Work Programme prospectus does state that participants in the Work Programme “must undertake the activities specified by their adviser.”

10. The Work Programme prospectus also states that “Jobcentre Plus will help people to volunteer, do work experience or take advantage of peer-to-peer support before they enter the Work Programme”, citing Work Clubs and Work Together as initiatives in this regard. This raises questions of whether simply signposting someone to a Volunteer Centre is the appropriate approach for a Work Programme provider.

Tel: 0161 339 2345

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:42 AM
From: Steve Starlord
To: Tony Okotie (T3SC); Sue Vickers (VCT)
Cc: Derek Pattison (TUWA); Katy Robinson
Subject: Fw: Forced Volunteering and the Work Programme - Slave labour and 'work for your dole' schemes

Tony Okotie & Sue Vickers,
Approaching 2 months since I sent this email to you Tony.
I've yet to hear anything from anyone let alone Sue Vickers!

Love, Light & Laughter
Starlord
Tameside Unemployed Worker's Alliance (TUWA)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 6:22 PM
From: Tony Okotie
To: Steve Starlord
Subject: RE: Forced Volunteering and the Work Programme - Slave labour and 'work for your dole' schemes

Starlord

Sue Vickers will be responding to you on this as the Director of Volunteer Centre Tameside and partner organisation in CVAT that is leading on volunteering issues.

Regards
Tony Okotie
Chief Executive
Tameside Third Sector Coalition
131 Katherine Street
Ashton-under-Lyne
OL6 7AW
Tel: 0161 339 4985 x2023

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:06 PM
From: Steve Starlord
To: Tony Okotie (T3SC)
Cc: Derek Pattison (TUWA) ; Katy Robinson
Subject: Fw: Forced Volunteering and the Work Programme - Slave labour and 'work for your dole' schemes

Hi Tony,
Re: your recent separate email.
I said I would respond to the specific emails referenced separately.


----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Okotie
To: Steve Starlord
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:00 AM
Subject: RE: Comment Received for Website Blog

Starlord
I am just back from leave. I have not received a comment via the blog from you. I did receive a very long email from you (which I have attached) about mandatory volunteering. Is this the email you are referring to? We will respond to this in due course. The comment facility on the blog is specifically to allow people to respond / comment on specific blog articles. I also received another email from you on 23/3 (again, attached) which I did respond to, asking what the email was about – it isn't clear.
Regards
Tony Okotie


I did not receive a response to this email which was about average length by my standards.
I consider emails to be letters and treat them as such.
I received a standard read-receipt.
I suspect this to be the email to which you refer when you say: "we will respond to this in due course".

Good!

Love, Light & Laughter
Starlord

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 3:55 PM
From: Steve Starlord
To: Ben Gilchrist (T3SC P&PM) ; Sue Vickers (VCT) ; Tony Okotie (T3SC) ; Cllr. David Sweeton ; Cllr. Dorothy Cartwright ; Cllr. Eileen Shorrock ; Cllr. Kieran Quinn
Cc: Be Dazzled ; John Bevan (DERA) ; Katy Robinson ; Derek Pattison (TUWA)
Subject: Forced Volunteering and the Work Programme - Slave labour and 'work for your dole' schemes

Dear VCT, T3SC, CAVAT & TMBC,

I am very concerned about this Government's anti-volunteering strategy under the WORK PROGRAMME where the DWP/Jobcentre's and Prime Providers and sub-Prime providers/contractors will be forcing/coercing many of the unemployed, especially the young under 25-year-olds, into working for Private sector and Third Sector and Public Sector organisations - ie what are fast becoming known as 'work for your dole' schemes.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/

Can your organisation give assurances that they WILL NOT be co-operating with this scheme.

Tameside Unemployed Worker's Alliance (TUWA), a local voluntary community group are opposed to such measures and we hope you are too!

We have no objection whatsoever to the unemployed freely giving their time to contribute to the community. That, after all, is the true nature of volunteering. That it is done freely from the heart because one cares, and not because one is being forced.

When this is enforced slave labour and 'work for your dole' such as unemployed community chain gangs, then this is completely unacceptable. Do you agree?

This includes the Government's Mandatory Work Programme. The Work Experience scheme has been much in the media of late and Chris Grayling has been squirming somewhat and has been forced to say he/they shall be re-writing some of the relevant legislation to make this volunteering element abundantly clear, and that any participating unemployed person can now leave the scheme at any time without incurring a benefit sanction.

However, though this Work Experience scheme is itself not mandatory/compulsory, non-compliance is met soon after with a placement on the Mandatory Work Programme itself which is compulsory. So, in effect, if you don't volunteer you will be forced to do so later under another similar scheme! That is something the Public and Voluntary sector need to be made well aware of. Many unemployed will be coming your way with the appearance of having volunteered. Many will have been coerced and really don't want to be there.

How will you differentiate between volunteers who come to you freely of their own volition, and those volunteers referred to you from the Jobcentre or one of their brethren?

So Chris Grayling is being disingenuous to put it mildly when he speaks about such matters. Of course, he will say, and does say, that such matters are left to the discretion of individual Jobcentre Officers who, simply because they suspect someone is not looking for work properly, and despite evidence to the contrary, can force them onto a work for their dole scheme for otherwise their benefit will be stopped.

Under the forthcoming Universal Credit it is unclear whether this will also include Housing Benefit such that the unemployed person will become almost instantly homeless as well, and intentionally so for non-payment of rent! RSL's like New Charter will be placed in a difficult position having to take unemployed tenants to court for non-payment of rent, but I doubt very much the courts will evict such tenants and so RSL's will not get their rent and the tenant will stay free of charge, even if starving to death. But I would not be surprised if such results in increasing crime in Tameside. After all I would never condemn a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread! Would you?

How can we tell the difference between the very long term unemployed (defined as 2 years) forced to carry out 6 months community work under the 'Community Action Programme' (CAP) and convicted criminals doing same under 'Community Payback'? Surely this is little more than criminalisation of the unemployed? Do you agree? In fact one may as well commit crime for the punishment is the same anyway! "CAP work experience placements must deliver a contribution to the local community and must not displace what would otherwise be paid jobs."
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-cap-1.pdf

I've just set-up a Tameside Unemployed Worker's Alliance (TUWA) Facebook 'Group' and Facebook 'Page' linked to my personal Facebook account. Unfortunately you cannot access these links unless you are a Facebook member. That's one of the many drawbacks of being on Facebook. It's an exclusive part of the internet!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/20/jobseekers-work-experience-compulsory-unpaid?fb=native
"A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions strongly rejected that mandatory placements would be used as a sanction, but said they could be offered in circumstances where advisers felt they were appropriate. In a statement, it was stressed that such referrals were not automatic."It is not the case that claimants who do not volunteer for work experience would automatically be referred to mandatory work activity," it said. "Jobcentre Plus advisers have the flexibility to use mandatory work activity, where they feel it is appropriate, as part of a wider range of support options. The decision to refer a claimant to mandatory work activity is taken on a case-by-case basis and claimants are only referred to the scheme where it is appropriate in their individual circumstances."Speaking with regard to individuals being placed on mandatory programmes after just a few weeks of unemployment, the spokeswoman said: "We have said that we expect most referrals to mandatory work activity will be for claimants who have been unemployed for 13 weeks or more. However, we have not ruled out the possibility that some claimants may be referred before this point where Jobcentre Plus advisers consider this to be appropriate in their individual case." 
My highlights! The approach taken by Jobcentre Plus officers is entirely subjective and not evidence based!

I have much experience of dealing with Jobcentre staff. I can assure you that some of them are nasty pieces of work and extremely prejudiced and judgmental in their dealings with the unemployed. I have acted as representative at meetings advising unemployed people of their rights during the interview process. I call such staff 'dragons' and I've had many battles with such over the years. It seems that a slight disagreement, or a personal prejudicial dislike, is all that it will now take for a sanction to be applied, even if one is complying precisely with the conditions stated in the so-called Jobseeker's Agreement, which by the way is to be re-named with the word agreement removed! Agreement was very far from the reality in the first place for a disagreement would result in a benefit suspension pending a slow appeals procedure effectively starving one into agreement! The only option was to agree and then to appeal to have it overturned, which because one had signed and agreed made it all the more difficult!

When is an agreement not an agreement?
When it's a Job Seeker's Agreement, of course!

Thank you
Love, Light & Laughter
Starlord
Tameside Unemployed Worker's Alliance (TUWA)

Ripped-off Britons:

Benefits Fraud: would the taxpayer save money by giving every citizen their due, not a penny more, not a penny less? Actually, it would cost £12.7 billion EXTRA!


[I've re-blogged this excellent article here unedited from the official blog of the Guardian cartoon strip' http://www.blog.rippedoffbritons.com/. Was published on that blog 19th June 2011. Just discovered via facebook! It's even more valid now than when originally written 1 year ago!]

Moral outrage is about something that doesn’t affect you personally. If someone pulls the leg off your teddy bear, it’s not moral outrage you are feeling – just rage. (No, really, I forgave you years ago. You know who you are!)

Moral outrage is all about the principal. And is magnified more by how close the offender is to you than by the magnitude of the offence.

  • Morally Outrageous: Someone who is about the same as us, same habits, same social group, doing something naughty. Outrageous because they are getting away with something we could get away with, if only we could be a bit more immoral:
    • Jumping the queue
    • Driving like an idiot
    • Benefits fraud
  • Just Damn Annoying: Someone very different to us: e.g. a celebrity, top company executive, or banker. Less outrageous, because their naughtiness is something we could only aspire to in our dreams/nightmares:
    • Getting let off by the police for extreme bad behaviour, including assault and substance abuse
    • Taking multi-million bonuses while wrecking the world economy
    • Asset stripping companies, and throwing pensioners onto the streets

When Ed Miliband, the leader of the UK Labour Party, wanted to give his outraged morals an airing in a speech earlier this month, he picked on two sets of bogeymen.

1)   A man he had met who “hadn’t been able to work since he was injured doing his job. It was a real injury, and he was obviously a good man who cared for his children. But I was convinced that there were other jobs he could do.”

2)   The executives of “Southern Cross care homes - where millions were plundered over the years leaving the business vulnerable, the elderly people in their care at risk and their families feeling betrayed.”


How did a “good man who cared for his children”, claiming £71.10 a week in incapacity benefit while looking pretty fit to Miliband, find himself in the whiffy company of unashamed slash-and-burn executives who pocketed an estimated £500million at the expense of pensioners?

The sad truth is the thought of some individual scamming us taxpayers out of £71.10 per week in incapacity benefit while actually being capable of flipping hamburgers for minimum wage is enough to blow all our other troubles away. We will soon forget about Southern Cross, but the bitterness for benefits cheats will stay with us.

No matter that we can’t afford a proper armed forces or a health service, we need to hand our schools to private companies, have to work until we are older and get less pension. Misfortunes caused by avaricious bankers who were let off the leash, self-serving politicians who got rid of the leash, and incompetent regulators who wouldn’t know how to use that tricky-dicky catch on the leash even if they had a leash and the inclination to use it.

What we need to do, we are told by politicians to the left and to the right, is tighten up on the benefits system. Make sure that everyone gets just what they are entitled to, not a penny more and not a penny less.




But would tightening up save us any money? The figures show that it would actually cost us billions.
In these straitened times, saving money is what it’s all about. After all, did we scrap HMS Ark Royal because we didn’t need it? If so, why did we have it? By taking out the Ark Royal, bankers did something last achieved by a German U-Boat in 1941.


All that bad banking is overlooked, but benefits fraud is not. So let's take a closer look at those benefits fraud figures:

  • £3.1 billion was overpaid, of which £1 billion was fraudulently taken in benefits. The rest was due to errors by the DWP and by the customers.
  • £1.3 billion was underpaid, all of which was due to DWP and customer errors.
  • NET Overpayment = £1.8 billion

On the other hand, the amount that was simply not claimed at all is many times this.

The fact is, if everyone got what they were entitled to, nothing more and nothing less, then Department of Works and Pensions figures show it would all cost us £billions MORE!

The last thing governments want is to be clear about the uncomfortable truths. So, here are the meanings of key bits of official-ese you will need for the next bit:

Caseload take-up compares the number of benefit recipients - averaged over the year - with the number who would be receiving [benefits] if everyone took up their entitlement for the full period of their entitlement.

Expenditure take-up compares the total amount of benefit received - averaged over the year - with the total amount that would be received if everyone took up their entitlement for the full period of their entitlement.


Income Support & Employment and Support Allowance

  • Take-up between 78% and 90% by caseload.
  • Take-up between 85% and 94% by expenditure.

Pension Credit

  • Take-up between 62% and 73% by caseload.
  • Take-up between 71% and 81% by expenditure.

Housing Benefit

  • Take-up between 77% and 86% by caseload.
  • Take-up between 82% and 90% by expenditure.

Council Tax Benefit

  • Take-up between 63% and 70% by caseload.
  • Take-up between 65% and 73% by expenditure.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Income-Based)

  • Take-up between 47% and 59% by caseload.
  • Take-up between 49% and 63% by expenditure.

And here are the totals in folding money:


Department of Works and Pensions, research published in June 2010.



Fraud in 2009/10 cost £1billion, which was less than 1% of total benefits payments. The reality is that if the government ran a campaign to ensure everyone took only what was coming to them, it would cost up to an extra £12.7 billion. How likely are they to do that at a time like this?

Politicians are overwhelmingly from the comfortable middle classes. Brought up traditionally, they will have all watched all those optimistic Hollywood musicals repeated over the years at Christmas. Few were repeated more often during the childhoods of this current generation of politicians than this song from “The King and I”.

Whenever I feel afraid
I hold my head erect
And whistle a happy tune
So no one will suspect
I'm afraid.

While shivering in my shoes
I strike a careless pose
And whistle a happy tune
And no one ever knows
I'm afraid.

The result of this deception
Is very strange to tell
For when I fool the people
I fear I fool myself as well!

Singing the song of benefits fraud finds plenty joining in from the broadcast, online, and print media. Politicians, always afraid of being found out, are happy to take cover and comfort wherever they can find it.

Benefits fraud, certainly a problem in itself, has proved successful in diverting Ripped-Off Britons from the much bigger problems in their lives. Politicians hope that by making ordinary Britons suspicious of and annoyed with their neighbours, they will forget they are getting ripped-off far far more by utility companies, banks, insurers, the taxman, and the government itself. Bigger problems that the politicians are too afraid, or too complicit in, to deal with.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Love, Light & Laughter
Starlord