charmer Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 You seem fixated on Paedophiles for some reason. what are you on about ? Fixated? I have mentioned them twice. I chose a recipient of charity that society abhors to compare and contrast the reactions of the forum members had the charity worker not been collecting for a popular chairty. That really wasn't that difficult, are you being argumentative or did you really not understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 I think you have missed the point. If the gentleman had been searching for a job all the working days apart from the 24 hours he was selling poppies then I don't imagine that he would have been sanctioned. I suspect (thats all any of us can do because the article is hardly balanced or informative) that the gentleman did not search for a job during the two week period and did this instead. I imagine it was the lack of action whilst not selling poppies that was the problem. I know what you're saying, there's nothing in the article that suggests this (wouldn't make anything like such a good story of course), however it seems to me that people aren't treated with any degree of common sense and sanctions can be applied arbitrarily. Of course, we only have one side of the story, but we also have countless other stories of sanctions being imposed in unfair circumstances, eg people who couldn't sign on at the allotted time because they'd attended a job interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 When will this madness stop ? Link to article. How come someone who served in Ulster, Kenya and Cyprus is a "war hero"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boothybabe Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Fixated? I have mentioned them twice. I chose a recipient of charity that society abhors to compare and contrast the reactions of the forum members had the charity worker not been collecting for a popular chairty. That really wasn't that difficult, are you being argumentative or did you really not understand? Dont worry about it, the poster above you is already half way there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daid Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 How come someone who served in Ulster, Kenya and Cyprus is a "war hero"? Oooh! contentious, haven't you heard. Hero status is easily gained now, why just a few months ago some blokey leaked a bunch of stuff and he was one too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 When will this madness stop ? Link to article. OK there is more to this story than people think and just like the Daily Mail, then the Mirror has an angle which it is spinning and conveniently missing out to get the response that we see on this thread. Le Maquis has made the right points and to a lesser extent charmer. He has had his benefit stopped because he is not actively seeking work allegedly. To be considered actively seeking work he signs an agreement on what he will be doing to look for a job. Within the agreement he will have to do an agreed number of actions per week. Applying for a job might be one action. If he supplies a list which has enough actions per week as agreed, then he will be considered actively seeking work. In the article he said he was doing 12h a week for the charity, which leaves the rest of the week in which he could have been seeking employment. We dont know how many actions were required, but he will have had ample time as the number could be completed in one day. He could even put forward his charity work as an action. So why sanction him? The most likely reason is that he did nothing other than the charity work and when he was asked to provide details of what he had done by the DWP when he signed on , which they do most of the time, then he didnt have a record. If you dont have a record of your activities, then they can sanction you for 1, 3, 6, 12, 24 months. They were just applying the rules is my guess. The other reason is that he missed an interview and if this was a case you miss an interview and you lose 4-13 weeks money. Disproportionate to the offence, especially as the dwp will think nothing of keeping a client waiting for an hour. What should he do? He should appeal and depending on his agreement he should provide evidence of what hes done be that looking on the internet making calls. I would also use the volunteer work as 1 action each time he was selling poppies as he can claim it increases his employability and he is actively building new skills. He'd have a good chance of winning if he is smart and argues the rules. They canot prove otherwise and if he presents his case well. He will most likely win, unless the actions per week was very high. If he comes up with a list, then its very hard for them to disprove, but he shouldnt fall down the trap of the poppp seller and war hero becayse thats a red herring in terms of whether he was doing sufficient actions to be considered actively seeking work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slugger Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Fixated? I have mentioned them twice. I chose a recipient of charity that society abhors to compare and contrast the reactions of the forum members had the charity worker not been collecting for a popular chairty. That really wasn't that difficult, are you being argumentative or did you really not understand? Are you ? Society abhors Peadoplilia and child abuse, and as such there is no charity for them. Obtaining a poppy to show gratitude and respect for the men that fought for our freedom has nothing to do with your stupid analogy. Do you wear a poppy ? or do you consider paedophilia a good reason not to ? Did I understand your posts. Guess not, you brought stupid reasonings into it which I don't understand ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Are you ? Society abhors Peadoplilia and child abuse, and as such there is no charity for them. Obtaining a poppy to show gratitude and respect for the men that fought for our freedom has nothing to do with your stupid analogy. Do you wear a poppy ? or do you consider paedophilia a good reason not to ? Did I understand your posts. Guess not, you brought stupid reasonings into it which I don't understand ! He used an analogy using polar opposites to prove a point. It made very good sense. You are just being obtuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 I can see Charmers point, bit extreme, but thats why he made it. The charity should more or less have been irrelevant. I think you would tic the fact he was a poppy seller and war hero though because that could be taken into account in his appeal as they have a certain degree of discretion. Its something I would mention in the appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien52 Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 If i were religious i'd pray for people like you. Maybe you could take up a religion for the evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.