sheff1johnny Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Was IDS responsible for this as well: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/12/suic-d15.html Or should we be sensible and accept that whoever is in power, some people will inevitably be unhappy, and some will take their own lives. It's always been the case, and always will be the case. Shame on anyone who tries to point score using it. I can't understand why you would post this, as reading most of the article, it doesn't help you saying I D S, is not responsible, if anything it adds more proof, that his recommendations are having a serious effect on people. In one sense people suffer with depression, no matter who is in power, but how many people have been made depressed through benefit reform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F. Sidebottom Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I can't understand why you would post this, as reading most of the article, it doesn't help you saying I D S, is not responsible, if anything it adds more proof, that his recommendations are having a serious effect on people. In one sense people suffer with depression, no matter who is in power, but how many people have been made depressed through benefit reform? The point of posting it is that this was back in 2009. IDS wasn't in charge then. Neither were the Tories. So when we get the usual 'Evil Tory' rantings, it is worth considering that this kind of thing happens whoever is in charge. And it always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Thankyou for people's comments. He has had his benefits worked out by 2 different benefits advisors who came to the same figure save for a couple of pounds. It looks like he needs to see someone else and try again with the new information you've provided. I thought this new system was supposed to be more simple... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff1johnny Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 The point of posting it is that this was back in 2009. IDS wasn't in charge then. Neither were the Tories. So when we get the usual 'Evil Tory' rantings, it is worth considering that this kind of thing happens whoever is in charge. And it always will. Point well made, hat off to you sir. End of the day the poor always suffer, no matter who is in charge, but it doesn't mean we have to take it, and not complain about the people who enforce these policies whether they be labour or conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Thankyou for people's comments. He has had his benefits worked out by 2 different benefits advisors who came to the same figure save for a couple of pounds. It looks like he needs to see someone else and try again with the new information you've provided. I thought this new system was supposed to be more simple... I hope this gets resolved for the young man and anyone else in a similar situation. Disability benefits and other support should not be in question for people with serious conditions like his. ---------- Post added 27-02-2015 at 13:55 ---------- Was IDS responsible for this as well: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/12/suic-d15.html Or should we be sensible and accept that whoever is in power, some people will inevitably be unhappy, and some will take their own lives. It's always been the case, and always will be the case. Shame on anyone who tries to point score using it. That's a really tragic story, no young mother and child should be left destitute and homeless in our country. Her sister did her best, but there doesn't appear to have been any connection to social services, and no support from the child's father. Unfeeling bureaucracy at its worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 In reply, does your company employ your cleaner for the same four hour period each week, No, it's more flexible to suit her. which in itself offers some stability. I know people who work for Bassett, and Fletchers, one week they get no hours, then they might get seven the week after. They have to wait by their phone, and can be asked to work with only an hours warning. If there was some stability maybe I'd agree with it more. Why not have a contract that guarantees a minimum set of hours a week, even if it was only 4 hours. I just personally couldn't imagine working, not knowing when I will be next working. The statement you made was zero hours contracts should be made illegal. The only part of your answer here which addresses that is this bold. If the government made legal contracts should start at 4 hours a week, how do you think the opposition would react? At best I think companies would only offer minimum wage for 4 hours, why tie themselves down to the regular wage (for new starters) if the work isn't regular work. I think companies would just pass this on to work agencies personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Thankyou for people's comments. He has had his benefits worked out by 2 different benefits advisors who came to the same figure save for a couple of pounds. It looks like he needs to see someone else and try again with the new information you've provided. I thought this new system was supposed to be more simple... Anna B, this website may be of help to you. http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now