I1L2T3 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 So the government spends our money going to court, then loses, then declares a victory? I've just had to pinch myself. Is Gordon Brown still in charge? What have we done to deserve this mess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EbonyBranch Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 The government has lost a Supreme Court appeal over a ruling its flagship "back to work" schemes were legally flawed. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith failed in a bid to overturn an earlier ruling that regulations underpinning the schemes were invalid. While it's technically true that the court upheld the ruling about the use of the regulations that were in force at the time of the original case (the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011), the government has since drafted new regulations (the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Schemes for Assisting People to Obtain Employment) Regulations 2013) which came into force in February. These replaced the older regs that the Courts ruled on. This 'victory/defeat' (depending on which way you want to spin it) is entirely moot and the same schemes continue in the same way. The only change is that the underlying regs have been updated and some of the letters to individuals have been improved. The BBC story you linked to explains most of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 While it's technically true that the court upheld the ruling about the use of the regulations that were in force at the time of the original case (the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011), the government has since drafted new regulations (the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Schemes for Assisting People to Obtain Employment) Regulations 2013) which came into force in February. These replaced the older regs that the Courts ruled on. This 'victory/defeat' (depending on which way you want to spin it) is entirely moot and the same schemes continue in the same way. The only change is that the underlying regs have been updated and some of the letters to individuals have been improved. So why did they waste taxpayer funds trying to get it overturned? If it didn't matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 The government has lost a Supreme Court appeal over a ruling its flagship "back to work" schemes were legally flawed. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith failed in a bid to overturn an earlier ruling that regulations underpinning the schemes were invalid. Not a good week for the government in court then, yesterday they lost an appeal brought by Jeremy Hunt in a bid to force through cuts to Lewisham hospital. A victory for the work shy then . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 A victory for the work shy then . More a slap[1] in the face for the "didn't think it through properly in the first place" brigade. (See also - Sharon Shoesmith compensation.) Is it really so hard for politicians jumping on populist bandwagons to check if something is legal before they do it? [1] Technically it's a slap in our faces as it's our taxes that end up paying for these things. Those responsible just get to feel a bit embarrassed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Those responsible just get to feel a bit embarrassed. i'm not sure they feel any embarrassment - you have to care to be embarrassed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 So why did they waste taxpayer funds trying to get it overturned? If it didn't matter? its what they do best, spending OUR money on crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
go4it Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Just watches the news story, Cait Reilly is the young lady who went to court. Complained that she had to work at Poundland. She was volunteering at a museum or something and thought that was sufficient to earn her job seekers allowance. Sadly for her, a degree does not equal an automatic job wherever you want. And where is she working now - a SUPERMARKET! No doubt 2 weeks of Poundland work helped her get that job. The Government is not here to fund your dreams. If you want a specific job well done on you, but you are going to have to wait for it. Don't expect the state to bend the rules for you. So lets please stop all the fuss over this. The scheme gets people experience. People have moaned for years they can't get a job without experience, and can't get experience without a job. ---------- Post added 30-10-2013 at 22:25 ---------- My friend recently got a 'back to work' placement at B&M and really felt she was conned into it. JCP told her they had set her an interview up for a job which would initially be on a 3 month trial basis and then could lead to a full time job. It was only once she was offered the 'job' when she went for the interview that she realised what it was, and it was too late to back out! Shes been lucky though, one of the permanent staff members left when she was in her first week there, so rather than advertise the job, they gave it to her. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android I take it your friend was out of work. The placement got her back in work. Why did she feel conned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 George Osbourne wants to get rid of the 'something for nothing' culture. Does that mean he will give up the inherited wealth coming to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Manchester United will be upset. They could have set workfare people on as players on £72 a week, but now they have to pay the likes of Wayne Rooney £250,000 a week instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.