So, as a consequence of August's unscheduled riots, the government, caught off guard by the notion the peasants might be revolting, has decided to tighten the noose further. Not content with locking up confused idiots for years on end and thus institutionalising them and putting them on course for a life of state dependency, they have now said that unemployed folk that don't pay court ordered fines (as one probably would if on benefits) now have to lose £25 a week direct from their benefits as a consequence. I thought such people, when fined, already had the little they had to pay (around a fiver a week at the moment) direct from their benefits anyway.
No word on whether this will also be extended, if only in principle, to people in similar situations that aren't unemployed. But then it's easier to bully those you pay directly I suppose. 60% of those rioting were not unemployed - not even half of those involved were 'scroungers', but that doesn't stop our stupid leader from saying things like this:
"The system as it stands at the moment is far too soft and does not always send the right signals."
What signals? No one is condoning crime nor saying the unemployed shouldn't be prosecuted if they break the law. But then it's a lot easier to be a good little robot if you have the money to live on, like our rich masters. All of whom of course are of good character and certainly didn't engage in riotous behaviour while members of the infamous Bullingdon club.
This shower in government, and indeed much of Parliament, just live on another planet. They really really don't understand what it's like being poor, dependent and vulnerable. I don't condone rioting or vandalism or arson or any such behaviour, but i certainly don't condone feral capitalism and the pious lecturing of those that benefit from it.
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Thoughts on the BBC Programme (ongoing)
This is an open entry regarding the recent Future of Welfare programme presented by John Humphreys and broadcast on 27/10. I'm cautiously dipping into this programme, but it does warrant examination.
So I'm watching the sequence with our man as he goes to an American jobcentre. Here he seems surprised that the jobcentre would ask claimants to look for work as a condition of their benefit. But if he's been researching this for a year in the UK he'll know that's always been the case, not just in America, but here. So why is this 'foreign' process being sold as some welfare revolution? This is just spurious nonsense. Again with the idea that up until now there's been a sense of entitlement.
Well hang on, people pay taxes and make contributions are entitled to make a claim for JSA. Even then that doesn't guarantee their claim will succeed and, for as long as the claim runs, the individual must meet the requirements as notarised in the Jobseeker's Agreement which is countersigned by the DWP. So why is there allowed to exist this twisting of the word 'entitlement' into something uglier, like a spoilt child wanting a bigger toy?
I don't understand why people should feel resentment toward welfare or guilt for claiming it? Where does the money come from - taxes and insurance. We all pay at least one of those two. If claimants aren't entitled to claim then why are the government entitled to it.
Now I'm watching as a jolly big black bloke running a (presumably, correct me if I'm wrong) Work Programme class. Again the curriculum wouldn't seem out of place in Royston Vasey, though perhaps presented with a less ugly sneer. But the conditionality is clear: a two year course of 30 hours weekly sitting in front of a whiteboard making primary school pictures, collages and even cupcakes. All with the idea that you will believe work, however it is defined (and they didn't define it at all), is the best thing for you. Those participants spoken to seemed cautiously unimpressed (and probably mindful they were being filmed). A one size happily clapper fits all approach the centre manager seemed oblivious to, even when she admitted there were half a million jobs (as of April) available.
Interestingly most of the people in the footage of the WP were previously employed - so why is there this bizarre focus on indoctrinating them with the belief that 'work' is better than 'not work'. But again, no definition of terms. Washing up and hoovering the house is work, but I don't get paid for that.
Then Humph is talking to a Tower Hamlets GP with a south African accent who claims, even though she deals with some of them, it's unbelievable that 2million people are genuine sick benefit recipients. She of course presents no evidence to back this up and would probably balk at a charge of being complicit in benefit fraud, but if she does, as was claimed, deal with such people, she or her surgery colleagues must be colluding in benefit fraud.
The idea that if all these millions, sick or scrounging, were in work that society would benefit in many ways, financially, emotionally, whatever, is just pie in the sky when placed in the context of the recent riots. 60% of those rioting were working. Is that the symptom of a hard working society?
So I'm watching the sequence with our man as he goes to an American jobcentre. Here he seems surprised that the jobcentre would ask claimants to look for work as a condition of their benefit. But if he's been researching this for a year in the UK he'll know that's always been the case, not just in America, but here. So why is this 'foreign' process being sold as some welfare revolution? This is just spurious nonsense. Again with the idea that up until now there's been a sense of entitlement.
Well hang on, people pay taxes and make contributions are entitled to make a claim for JSA. Even then that doesn't guarantee their claim will succeed and, for as long as the claim runs, the individual must meet the requirements as notarised in the Jobseeker's Agreement which is countersigned by the DWP. So why is there allowed to exist this twisting of the word 'entitlement' into something uglier, like a spoilt child wanting a bigger toy?
I don't understand why people should feel resentment toward welfare or guilt for claiming it? Where does the money come from - taxes and insurance. We all pay at least one of those two. If claimants aren't entitled to claim then why are the government entitled to it.
Now I'm watching as a jolly big black bloke running a (presumably, correct me if I'm wrong) Work Programme class. Again the curriculum wouldn't seem out of place in Royston Vasey, though perhaps presented with a less ugly sneer. But the conditionality is clear: a two year course of 30 hours weekly sitting in front of a whiteboard making primary school pictures, collages and even cupcakes. All with the idea that you will believe work, however it is defined (and they didn't define it at all), is the best thing for you. Those participants spoken to seemed cautiously unimpressed (and probably mindful they were being filmed). A one size happily clapper fits all approach the centre manager seemed oblivious to, even when she admitted there were half a million jobs (as of April) available.
Interestingly most of the people in the footage of the WP were previously employed - so why is there this bizarre focus on indoctrinating them with the belief that 'work' is better than 'not work'. But again, no definition of terms. Washing up and hoovering the house is work, but I don't get paid for that.
Then Humph is talking to a Tower Hamlets GP with a south African accent who claims, even though she deals with some of them, it's unbelievable that 2million people are genuine sick benefit recipients. She of course presents no evidence to back this up and would probably balk at a charge of being complicit in benefit fraud, but if she does, as was claimed, deal with such people, she or her surgery colleagues must be colluding in benefit fraud.
The idea that if all these millions, sick or scrounging, were in work that society would benefit in many ways, financially, emotionally, whatever, is just pie in the sky when placed in the context of the recent riots. 60% of those rioting were working. Is that the symptom of a hard working society?
Friday, 28 October 2011
God v. Scroungers
While I was trying to get home earlier and listening to Radio 2, there was a discussion about what Jesus would make of the protesters outside St Pauls. Some rancid old vicar and author came on to denounce the protesters in a pretty hysterical way. His entire argument seemed, as far as this piece is concerned, based on the idea that a) the protesters are all scroungers and layabouts (bollocks) and b) that such people shouldn't be allowed to protest. He was pretty adamant about this. In other words, protest - freedom of expression and dissent - are an economic right afforded only to those who 'pay their way'. That of course has some pretty interesting ramifications for the people in charge of our sick society. What an odious opinion. It just goes to show how far we have fallen. But the anti scrounger message is certainly alive and well.
I may get around to watching John Humphrys documentary on welfare on the iplayer, but that will have to wait until my sanity returns. I don't think I have the requisite emotional strength to deconstruct that kind of nonsense just yet. I saw a couple of minutes when it aired involving him talking to people from Poland who seemed to be cast in the role of benefit bashers while coming over here from an even more austere system. I couldn't wrap my head around that, nor why, again, the immigrant card was being played. What on earth do the Poles have to do with why I should be called a scrounger by the ingnoranti?
I may get around to watching John Humphrys documentary on welfare on the iplayer, but that will have to wait until my sanity returns. I don't think I have the requisite emotional strength to deconstruct that kind of nonsense just yet. I saw a couple of minutes when it aired involving him talking to people from Poland who seemed to be cast in the role of benefit bashers while coming over here from an even more austere system. I couldn't wrap my head around that, nor why, again, the immigrant card was being played. What on earth do the Poles have to do with why I should be called a scrounger by the ingnoranti?
Surprise! Appointment!
Signed on this morning. Had to see the woman I saw last time, I'm not sure what's happened to the person I normally see, but I have an appointment with her on Monday apparently. Nice of them to tell me this now and to have booked an appointment at a time I can't make due to transport. The signing itself went smoothly enough; they had given me a job to apply for below my agreed hours (20, the job was 16 which alone becomes difficult when you factor in bus costs at £7.50 a day) which I couldn't apply for. The job was with Asda (ugh - supermarkets are not conducive to my sanity) and the application process was online, only their site requires a compulsory mobile phone number entry. I don't have a mobile and even if I did I wouldn't feel comfortable letting them have it. Couldn't put a landline in as that was already input. Stupid.
Fortunately the JC weren't bothered. Too bad if they were, it's nothing I can do about it. I even emailed Asda and just got the standard corporate spiel, which is about the same as their advert anyway. That had no information on where or when you'd be working. In the end I agreed to apply for a job I can't do just because it's easier to deal with it through the application than get the JC looking at me like a confused puppy when I explain to them I have no experience in the position as it's something I've had to pick because of how their system works (pick 3 categories of work).
So now I get informed of an appointment at 2pm on Monday with my normal advisor who has reappeared out of the woodwork. I've already had it out with them before about the limited buis service that runs to the JC, but again they've chosen to ignore this. I shall have to ring back alter and probably make things worse. I suppose if I have to go in it would be better sooner rather than later. But such things as convenience and expediency and efficiency seem wasted on the Jobcentre. Why couldn't this appointment, to go through my Jobseeker Agreement (again - pointless as nothing is going to change), be done on my next signing time (which wasn't booked so presumably this will be done on Monday or whenever).
What annoys me more is that I cannot cope with having things sprung on me like this. It probably sounds like a lame trivial point to most people, but it's issues like this that are the root of my emotional/mental issues, and is what prompted me to ask for an Aspergers diagnosis (a year ago, still waiting).
Even then, I have conceded to my GP that it may well not be Aspergers. I'm not an expert, but I need to get to the bottom of the issues that cause me problems. Unfortunately between the GP and the DWP nothing changes. These are real problems for me (others may disagree, but we are all different - some of us have problems others do not) and I have been trying to get them addressed for years, but as time passes they are regarded less and less. It feels like a vicious circle at times.
The worst part is, the DWP know this. I've discussed this with the advisor before. She knows this, and it's all recorded on my file. It's why I was claiming ESA previously. The problems, as I've told her and the GP, do not go away and aren't going to just magically disappear through the cleansing power of some quasi religious work ethic. That's an attitude that's just deeply dismissive and keeps me down. So the JC know that having this sprung on me is a problem and is something I react very very badly to. But do they listen?
I will have to ring them later and maybe persuade them that this be changed to my next signing appointment and have ti all done them. Doing so would also save them refunding my bus fare. If they don't then I'm going to turn up 40 minutes late and that will be that. Honestly, to some this might sound rather pathetic, but that's just the way ti is. This level of trivial inflexibility and inefficiency is by its nature something I cannot deal with. I struggle with this and the JC are supposed to be helpful and understanding, but beneath their veneer it's the same old behemoth.
EDIT: Thanks to poorly advertised local bus diversions I missed my bus home so I went back and asked to have the appointment changed. Not surprisingly this produced the usual JC confusion as the person ignored my explaining which bus service I have to use or the times that it runs. I've been through this with them before to the point they have a photocopy of the local timetable in my little signing dossier. She didn't bother to look at this. Instead asking me why I don't sign at the other jobcentre (a few miles more distant but more friendly to buses), I explained that was because it's as rough as fuck. Not that it should even be an issue anyway if these people just listened and didn't waste my time springing surprise appointments on me without warning, discussion or planning. I can't deal with the JC. They operate in a fashion that is just beyond my ability to process healthily and I'm getting zero support for this. I'm still waiting to hear back from the people that promised some help a month ago at a community health and wellbeing outreach day where I live.
So now I have to go in 9am on Tuesday. This is now playing on my mind, as happens in my head, and will continue to do so until then. After which I will start fixating on my next signing time. These are the problems I have and there is no apparent help for this. The JC do not understand these things and speak only their language: attend or else. No negotiation, discussion or support. I also anticipate the inevitable referral to the local WP. Something else I shall no doubt fret over. Anxiety is great.
Fortunately the JC weren't bothered. Too bad if they were, it's nothing I can do about it. I even emailed Asda and just got the standard corporate spiel, which is about the same as their advert anyway. That had no information on where or when you'd be working. In the end I agreed to apply for a job I can't do just because it's easier to deal with it through the application than get the JC looking at me like a confused puppy when I explain to them I have no experience in the position as it's something I've had to pick because of how their system works (pick 3 categories of work).
So now I get informed of an appointment at 2pm on Monday with my normal advisor who has reappeared out of the woodwork. I've already had it out with them before about the limited buis service that runs to the JC, but again they've chosen to ignore this. I shall have to ring back alter and probably make things worse. I suppose if I have to go in it would be better sooner rather than later. But such things as convenience and expediency and efficiency seem wasted on the Jobcentre. Why couldn't this appointment, to go through my Jobseeker Agreement (again - pointless as nothing is going to change), be done on my next signing time (which wasn't booked so presumably this will be done on Monday or whenever).
What annoys me more is that I cannot cope with having things sprung on me like this. It probably sounds like a lame trivial point to most people, but it's issues like this that are the root of my emotional/mental issues, and is what prompted me to ask for an Aspergers diagnosis (a year ago, still waiting).
Even then, I have conceded to my GP that it may well not be Aspergers. I'm not an expert, but I need to get to the bottom of the issues that cause me problems. Unfortunately between the GP and the DWP nothing changes. These are real problems for me (others may disagree, but we are all different - some of us have problems others do not) and I have been trying to get them addressed for years, but as time passes they are regarded less and less. It feels like a vicious circle at times.
The worst part is, the DWP know this. I've discussed this with the advisor before. She knows this, and it's all recorded on my file. It's why I was claiming ESA previously. The problems, as I've told her and the GP, do not go away and aren't going to just magically disappear through the cleansing power of some quasi religious work ethic. That's an attitude that's just deeply dismissive and keeps me down. So the JC know that having this sprung on me is a problem and is something I react very very badly to. But do they listen?
I will have to ring them later and maybe persuade them that this be changed to my next signing appointment and have ti all done them. Doing so would also save them refunding my bus fare. If they don't then I'm going to turn up 40 minutes late and that will be that. Honestly, to some this might sound rather pathetic, but that's just the way ti is. This level of trivial inflexibility and inefficiency is by its nature something I cannot deal with. I struggle with this and the JC are supposed to be helpful and understanding, but beneath their veneer it's the same old behemoth.
EDIT: Thanks to poorly advertised local bus diversions I missed my bus home so I went back and asked to have the appointment changed. Not surprisingly this produced the usual JC confusion as the person ignored my explaining which bus service I have to use or the times that it runs. I've been through this with them before to the point they have a photocopy of the local timetable in my little signing dossier. She didn't bother to look at this. Instead asking me why I don't sign at the other jobcentre (a few miles more distant but more friendly to buses), I explained that was because it's as rough as fuck. Not that it should even be an issue anyway if these people just listened and didn't waste my time springing surprise appointments on me without warning, discussion or planning. I can't deal with the JC. They operate in a fashion that is just beyond my ability to process healthily and I'm getting zero support for this. I'm still waiting to hear back from the people that promised some help a month ago at a community health and wellbeing outreach day where I live.
So now I have to go in 9am on Tuesday. This is now playing on my mind, as happens in my head, and will continue to do so until then. After which I will start fixating on my next signing time. These are the problems I have and there is no apparent help for this. The JC do not understand these things and speak only their language: attend or else. No negotiation, discussion or support. I also anticipate the inevitable referral to the local WP. Something else I shall no doubt fret over. Anxiety is great.
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Humphry Dumpty
I was dismayed to learn that John Humprhies, the miserable old git from Radio 4 and Mastermind, is fronting another BBC hatchet job on welfare. I won't be watching. I can't be bothered (typical scrounger attitude, of course). I've had enough of all this. I'm not sleeping very well and I have to sign on this week and it requires I muster all my strength to deal with that. Seeing this will tip me over the edge I think.
So it looks like another call for the cutting of benefits. In this artificial age of Tory inspired (though certainly not Tory led) austerity they just will not let this go: it's clear this ghastly coalition would love to cut the welfare budget entirely. They are already taking credit for all of Labour's ghastly innovations (such as ESA - or specifically the WCA) and then blaming them for everything that has perceived to have gone wrong in recent years (despite the global nature of the economic disaster). Make no mistake this is how the Tories operate, which makes their lib dem lackeys look all the more feeble and naive. To think I voted for the latter (shudders).
What is going to be achieved by cutting JSA? What good can come of this? Nothing. The removal of back to work benefits will be a gangmaster's charter. There are also many Tories who would like to see nothing more than the repeal of the NMW, as well as such business 'experts' as Pigby Jones (an apologist for tax avoidance, ironically and sadly).
Of course removing JSA won't guarantee an increase in the availability of work or the amount. It won't protect the unemployed, who will then be left with nothing, from dodgy employers as they will have no choice but to accept what they are being offered. With legal aid going the same way what chance do they have to stand up against an employer who acts illegally? Not even that, without a safety net such people can be endlessly messed around by employers who won't even need to resort to breaking the law. Make no mistake, removing the welfare safety net will be a disaster.
But then what? So you're left with no money while the Tories and the ignorant will believe that somehow makes it easier to get work - as if JSA is a barrier to work. That's the level of ignorance we are dealing with. Benefits are seen not as a means to live (at the most basic level), but as an actual barrier, a force compelling the 'idle' to indolence. It's disgusting, puritan level language from the era of the workhouse.
So how are you meant to live while you apply for the same, dwindling, number of jobs? The removal of JSA won't increase the number of positions which are already about a third less than the number of people looking for work. How is the fact you've had your benefit removed going to make you an attractive proposition to a given employer - how is not being able to eat properly going to spur you on to work?
These sorts of programmes make me sad. I can't deal with this anymore. It's so easy for a TV producer to fetch up someone that represents a desired stereotype in order to further their agenda. As if a single example of a Frank Gallagher type proves that such people are the majority, not the statistical minority they really are. More money is lost to the system due to departmental error (which may or may not include underpayment of benefits as well as monies unclaimed) than fraud. While the latter certainly exists, we live in a capitalist system - there's fraud in all walks of life.
Why must we have this same pathetic debate over and over. Why must the unemployed continue to be the political whipping boys of the age. The poor were and are not responsible for the reckless nature of unfettered capitalism, yet acutely they are held responsible. We are pariahs and it is an unpleasant way to live. You almost have to walk through society in disguise, lest someone find out your 'true identity' as a 'scrounger'. Your thoughts, ideas, feelings and opinions are then traduced and your worth diminished in the eyes of an increasingly hostile and easily baited society.
So it looks like another call for the cutting of benefits. In this artificial age of Tory inspired (though certainly not Tory led) austerity they just will not let this go: it's clear this ghastly coalition would love to cut the welfare budget entirely. They are already taking credit for all of Labour's ghastly innovations (such as ESA - or specifically the WCA) and then blaming them for everything that has perceived to have gone wrong in recent years (despite the global nature of the economic disaster). Make no mistake this is how the Tories operate, which makes their lib dem lackeys look all the more feeble and naive. To think I voted for the latter (shudders).
What is going to be achieved by cutting JSA? What good can come of this? Nothing. The removal of back to work benefits will be a gangmaster's charter. There are also many Tories who would like to see nothing more than the repeal of the NMW, as well as such business 'experts' as Pigby Jones (an apologist for tax avoidance, ironically and sadly).
Of course removing JSA won't guarantee an increase in the availability of work or the amount. It won't protect the unemployed, who will then be left with nothing, from dodgy employers as they will have no choice but to accept what they are being offered. With legal aid going the same way what chance do they have to stand up against an employer who acts illegally? Not even that, without a safety net such people can be endlessly messed around by employers who won't even need to resort to breaking the law. Make no mistake, removing the welfare safety net will be a disaster.
But then what? So you're left with no money while the Tories and the ignorant will believe that somehow makes it easier to get work - as if JSA is a barrier to work. That's the level of ignorance we are dealing with. Benefits are seen not as a means to live (at the most basic level), but as an actual barrier, a force compelling the 'idle' to indolence. It's disgusting, puritan level language from the era of the workhouse.
So how are you meant to live while you apply for the same, dwindling, number of jobs? The removal of JSA won't increase the number of positions which are already about a third less than the number of people looking for work. How is the fact you've had your benefit removed going to make you an attractive proposition to a given employer - how is not being able to eat properly going to spur you on to work?
These sorts of programmes make me sad. I can't deal with this anymore. It's so easy for a TV producer to fetch up someone that represents a desired stereotype in order to further their agenda. As if a single example of a Frank Gallagher type proves that such people are the majority, not the statistical minority they really are. More money is lost to the system due to departmental error (which may or may not include underpayment of benefits as well as monies unclaimed) than fraud. While the latter certainly exists, we live in a capitalist system - there's fraud in all walks of life.
Why must we have this same pathetic debate over and over. Why must the unemployed continue to be the political whipping boys of the age. The poor were and are not responsible for the reckless nature of unfettered capitalism, yet acutely they are held responsible. We are pariahs and it is an unpleasant way to live. You almost have to walk through society in disguise, lest someone find out your 'true identity' as a 'scrounger'. Your thoughts, ideas, feelings and opinions are then traduced and your worth diminished in the eyes of an increasingly hostile and easily baited society.
Sunday, 23 October 2011
Right Wing Punditry
I grew up in a fairly conservative household, and to this day I have no idea what party my mother votes for (I fear that it's Tory as she is an avowed Mail reader - which is entirely her right, even though I abhor the rag). My father voted against them, yet unwittingly brought into all the right wing propaganda. As I grew up and became able to vote, and got interested in politics - or, specifically, social issues, I found myself opposing conservative values. I can't articulate my feelings in perhaps as detailed a fashion as the top pundits might like; I'm not a student of political history or economic trends. This blog is intended to speak of my experience, opinions and thoughts and people can take or leave that as they please. I have never voted Tory or right wing.
That said, I voted liberal during the last election. More fool me for believing them.
I say this because I feel that, as a human being living in society (aren't we all), it is a complete contradiction to things I value in terms of a progressive inclusive compassionate culture. It being voting for the right wing - the Tories. The right wing seems to foster division and fear based on control of resources and propagating the belief that resources are scarce. They believe in valuing people in economic terms, such as the deserving and undeserving poor. People surplus to requirements (ie the poor) are to be ruthlessly expunged - and we can see this happening. I can't in all human conscience support or endorse these values.
Thus it is that I wail and gnash my teeth like a fishwife each and every time one of the usual cabal of pundits appears on a discussion show or radio talk show. Quite why I still react like this is probably not to my credit as these people are routinely invited on and it's no longer a surprise to see or hear their tired views. But to be honest I'm tired: this morning, on the beeb's premier fluffcast, Sunday Morning Live, we had a typical example of this. Nick Ferrari, a bigoted blob of a man huffing and puffing his way through a trio of topics that saw him roll his eyes like a fruit machine, and at one point the Taxpayer's Alliance were on hand to put forward their, equally tired, point of view. Neither contributions rooted in fact, sense or, dare I say, compassion.
Are you not tired of these sorts of discussions? I can understand bringing on different points of view, so long as they have something relevant and factual to contribute. But that is never the case with the right wing. All these people do is hector and barrack, propagating spurious hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, and perennial straw men. When countered with reason they resort to (as bullyboy Jon Gaunt likes to do) claiming they represent the beleaguered working man in a particularly obsequious display of deliberately avoiding the point. In the end, we get absolutely nowhere. These people shout the loudest and say the least. Ironically they are also the most keen to say how loony liberal the BBC has become!
People need to be aware of what's going on. Arm themselves with facts or at the least use common sense (as that's really all it takes) to challenge these buffoons. We have a nation divided and hateful now and it's got to change.
That said, I voted liberal during the last election. More fool me for believing them.
I say this because I feel that, as a human being living in society (aren't we all), it is a complete contradiction to things I value in terms of a progressive inclusive compassionate culture. It being voting for the right wing - the Tories. The right wing seems to foster division and fear based on control of resources and propagating the belief that resources are scarce. They believe in valuing people in economic terms, such as the deserving and undeserving poor. People surplus to requirements (ie the poor) are to be ruthlessly expunged - and we can see this happening. I can't in all human conscience support or endorse these values.
Thus it is that I wail and gnash my teeth like a fishwife each and every time one of the usual cabal of pundits appears on a discussion show or radio talk show. Quite why I still react like this is probably not to my credit as these people are routinely invited on and it's no longer a surprise to see or hear their tired views. But to be honest I'm tired: this morning, on the beeb's premier fluffcast, Sunday Morning Live, we had a typical example of this. Nick Ferrari, a bigoted blob of a man huffing and puffing his way through a trio of topics that saw him roll his eyes like a fruit machine, and at one point the Taxpayer's Alliance were on hand to put forward their, equally tired, point of view. Neither contributions rooted in fact, sense or, dare I say, compassion.
Are you not tired of these sorts of discussions? I can understand bringing on different points of view, so long as they have something relevant and factual to contribute. But that is never the case with the right wing. All these people do is hector and barrack, propagating spurious hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, and perennial straw men. When countered with reason they resort to (as bullyboy Jon Gaunt likes to do) claiming they represent the beleaguered working man in a particularly obsequious display of deliberately avoiding the point. In the end, we get absolutely nowhere. These people shout the loudest and say the least. Ironically they are also the most keen to say how loony liberal the BBC has become!
People need to be aware of what's going on. Arm themselves with facts or at the least use common sense (as that's really all it takes) to challenge these buffoons. We have a nation divided and hateful now and it's got to change.
Saturday, 22 October 2011
It's That Time of the Year
Shops are advertising Christmas vacancies still. The jobcentre of course obliges. This post is to discuss whether it's worth it. Waterstones have a couple of 4 week jobs advertised, but I don't think I'm going to bother. No doubt that's the wrong attitude, but I don't care. I'm done in with all this nonsense. The Jobcentre just doesn't understand these things.
Working for a month will involve signing off for that period and, inevitably, signing back on right afterwards. You'll have a few quid spending money in your pocket for Christmas; that isn't an issue for me. You can't claim if you're working full time, but you will still need to find the money to meet your expenses (including bus fares which are exorbitant). The problem with this is something the JC has never been able to properly address. I've started work after signing off before where I've been promised financial support to help tide me over until you get paid only to be told that then wasn't going to be forthcoming and that I will just have to manage because, and I quote, 'other people manage'. Even a month's work like this you won't be paid weekly. So you will need to support yourself to even do the job, as well as meet your daily needs (food, etc) for that period. Of course when you get paid, the job ends.
Then you have the fun and games of restarting your claim. Rapid reclaims (according to my JC, at least, I can't confirm this) have been relegated to history and so that means another period of insecurity. So you won't be treating yourself to anything nice over the festive season because you'll need your money to tide you over until you can claim again.
Now people might argue that it's good experience. Well if that's what you want then fine. I don't think a month's work means fuck all personally, especially when there are so many people out of work with all kinds of superior levels of experience anyway. This is where we get into the competitive aspect of looking for work. People shouldn't have to be competing against their fellow citizens to find paid work to live, it's a crazy way of living. But we ameliorate that by putting down the people that lose out. I also don't want a career in retail (which is not the same thing as saying I won't ever work in a shop) so that experience means nothing to me. I don't buy into this argument that 'it all looks good on the cv'. I think it's more important to make choices that are right for you than it is to appease these transient social conventions, and if it means hobbling yourself when dealing with the byzantine benefits system later on then it just isn't worth it.
Some might argue that it can lead to a full time job. Well, it could, but that's highly unlikely. If they wanted permanent full time staff - they'd advertise for them. This really is just an urban myth used to scare the scroungers, the same with most things (like the above 'experience' notion).
No, all of this ignores the real issues: the inflexible system that, if you fall foul of, can land you in real hardship, and the lack of real opportunities and support that isn't based on 4 weeks work. Maybe then it's best we all reject these jobs, as full time jobseekers, and leave such positions to those they are intended for (students, for example). Putting these jobs in the same category as career opportunities or long term good paid work is disingenuous and counter productive.
Working for a month will involve signing off for that period and, inevitably, signing back on right afterwards. You'll have a few quid spending money in your pocket for Christmas; that isn't an issue for me. You can't claim if you're working full time, but you will still need to find the money to meet your expenses (including bus fares which are exorbitant). The problem with this is something the JC has never been able to properly address. I've started work after signing off before where I've been promised financial support to help tide me over until you get paid only to be told that then wasn't going to be forthcoming and that I will just have to manage because, and I quote, 'other people manage'. Even a month's work like this you won't be paid weekly. So you will need to support yourself to even do the job, as well as meet your daily needs (food, etc) for that period. Of course when you get paid, the job ends.
Then you have the fun and games of restarting your claim. Rapid reclaims (according to my JC, at least, I can't confirm this) have been relegated to history and so that means another period of insecurity. So you won't be treating yourself to anything nice over the festive season because you'll need your money to tide you over until you can claim again.
Now people might argue that it's good experience. Well if that's what you want then fine. I don't think a month's work means fuck all personally, especially when there are so many people out of work with all kinds of superior levels of experience anyway. This is where we get into the competitive aspect of looking for work. People shouldn't have to be competing against their fellow citizens to find paid work to live, it's a crazy way of living. But we ameliorate that by putting down the people that lose out. I also don't want a career in retail (which is not the same thing as saying I won't ever work in a shop) so that experience means nothing to me. I don't buy into this argument that 'it all looks good on the cv'. I think it's more important to make choices that are right for you than it is to appease these transient social conventions, and if it means hobbling yourself when dealing with the byzantine benefits system later on then it just isn't worth it.
Some might argue that it can lead to a full time job. Well, it could, but that's highly unlikely. If they wanted permanent full time staff - they'd advertise for them. This really is just an urban myth used to scare the scroungers, the same with most things (like the above 'experience' notion).
No, all of this ignores the real issues: the inflexible system that, if you fall foul of, can land you in real hardship, and the lack of real opportunities and support that isn't based on 4 weeks work. Maybe then it's best we all reject these jobs, as full time jobseekers, and leave such positions to those they are intended for (students, for example). Putting these jobs in the same category as career opportunities or long term good paid work is disingenuous and counter productive.
Friday, 21 October 2011
Up For Hire final day, final word
So tonight’s show is basically ‘how to run a big company and be successful’. Okey dokey. To that end, and ignoring the pointless presence of radio 1 dj’s, James Khan is on hand to tell us all how great it is being filthy rich. He recommends the fine art of blagging, which is perfectly reasonable. But the bottom line is the bottom line: money. Can’t start a business without it and that’s the one thing no one can provide a surefire answer for. Not even existing small businesses can guarantee funding these days, despite the banking bailout.
Now the students are off to run large companies. Why? Fuck knows. They are going to spend a few days replacing the companies’ actual MD’s, because of course that’s what people get to do when they apply for jobs.
Oh I’m tired. I don’t care what Sara Cox’s work ethic is (just for money). Who cares. It’s not relevant to me because her experience isn’t.
And it gets better: the MD of fucking Gregg’s has appeared to offer 3 month contracts to 5 lucky people. You could probably do better looking on their own website (these jobs are advertised on the show site) and applying. Who the fuck wants to work in that greasy sweatshop; their food is dire. Oh wait; it’s a job, better than sitting on your arse…blah blah blah. Is it better? There’s no guarantee that at the end of this three month period you are actually going to be employed full time, and is it really the best that we can do to offer graduates work feeding slobs their greasy crap? The minute you walk into their ovens – I mean shops – you come out in a greasy sweat, like a Japanese POW. Still a job is a job, so they tell me. Well of course it is. Most things are what they are by their very nature. Stock cliches like this are what this show has been full of. All in all, a nice bit of PR for Greggs and every other company – funny how they couldn’t offer these positions on their recruitment/career websites or through the jobcentre, so how did these jobs come to exist? The unemployed are routinely dismissed as scroungers on the basis of being too lazy to apply for all the jobs the right wing media constantly assumes to exist. Now this contrived tv experience tacitly confirms that.
These are easy platitudes that people can trot out as a means of avoiding the issue and dismissing the discussion; that’s what we do these days.
Ok, this is fake. Now the students are dealing with people in their imaginary MD position. This includes interviewing potential management staff! Yes, of course that’s believable. Would you be happy to proceed with an important job interview if the employer was using a tv reality show contestant to interview you? I bloody well wouldn’t be.
So the show takes a break for half an hour and when we return we are treated to the ‘what happened next’ segment of the adventures of the four students. Surprise surprise, and to cut a long story short, they have all come out on top. Each of the MD’s of the companies they’ve just worked for have offered them a job, though I’m sure the lad that ended up working in Pizza Hut wishes he’d been assigned the task of running AOL (do they even still exist) as the girl who did that job got offered a far more secure sounding and up market job! Them’s the breaks kids.
Really, we are meant to believe this shit? This whole thing has conformed to a typical reality tv narrative in exactly the same way as Fairy Jobmother, only with the added dimension of a studio audience and some superficial discussion elements. None of the four didn’t get offered a job, they all seemed to do very well – and all from the bigwig MD characters they worked for in the final sequence. The manager of the holiday park from episode one didn’t employ them, nor did the wedding planner from last night, nor the managers of the shops they ran on the other episode. Funny that.
This show has angered me: although it focused on youth unemployment, it didn’t represent any reality that I can relate to. To have an audience full of pretty faces that all seem to be successful entrepreneurs just bewilders me and to talk about ‘going for your dreams’ as though it was as simple as going for a haircut I find extraordinary. Not one comment on the nightmare of dealing with the JC, JSA and using their crummy website, of the shitty provider pimps and programmes such as the Work Programme, or the scandal of paying these racketeers the kinds of money that the likes of Emma Harrison have made. All in all a shallow reality tv effort.
Thursday, 20 October 2011
Up For Hire day 3
I'm sure this is getting boring now. I'm sure that I'm coming across as a right little weasel; a lazy scrounger. Well I'm equally sure that's all true. But the thing is, I have a real issue with the way the issue of unemployment and it's satellite aspects are presented in the popular, or rather populist, media. I objected strongly to that awful Fairy Jobmother programme and I'm not really seeing much better in this.
The problem I have are the messages it sends out, explicitly or implicitly. The audience is predominantly young and successful - other than the actual guests and participants the audience are all successful young entrepreneurs. Well that's great, but we can't all be businessmen, nor I believe should we. So what we get are a load of glib statements and platitudes as advice: 'you've just got to get off your arse and do it'. But that tells me nothing. Unemployment, like most social issues, is in fact complex because it affects each individual as an individual, but the systems in place simply cannot, and seemingly will not, deal with them on an individual basis. Yet people are happy to make a profit from it all. As a result people are inevitably fingered as 'lazy' or 'scroungers' because of society's media compelled need to make comparisons. 'You've just got to get off your arse...' is such a statement, it's saying 'compared to me and all the other hardworking taxpayers, you must conform to our expectations'.
But that isn't how people work. Some might benefit from that advice, other's won't. It's a crapshoot, and those that don't become increasingly isolated exacerbating the problems. The fact that society has become so conditioned by the anti-benefits message in the predominantly right wing media just makes it worse. People are now wholly intolerant of benefits that they are happy to see them work for their benefits, even though that completely undermines the social contract of work and impacts on real existing jobs - after all how many councils are going to need paid street cleaners, for instance, when they can get local scroungers to do it for them?
I could, have, and indeed will in the future, go on about this more. As an unemployed person, long term (there's no shame in this, I didn't invent the capitalist system that both thrives on and condemns people out of work, nor did i vote for it), I have never felt my needs met or supported in the arena of employment and the work experiences I've had, which have never been pandering or luxurious (cleaning and tillwork), have been equally isolating, low paid, and thankless. So with that in mind, and in the interests of examining the reality of this show, here's my writeup for day 3, same format as yesterday.
Ok we start off by talking about working overseas? Is this relevant? Today's reality tv skit features the four students working for a plush wedding planner. Their mission involves scoping a suitable venue at a profit, and then finding something to provide the 'wow factor' (that will the be ONLY time I will ever use that fucktacular phrase) for the hypothetical wedding. This involves jetting off to places like the cote d'azur, and the med. Just like we all have to when we sign on. Honestly, what is the point of this? In fact one audient pointed out that without the cameras would these people have gotten a foot in the door - same as with the jobs advertised and applied for in the Fairy Jobmother. Is it really fair for a tv show with its unreality and edits to perpetuate certain veiws about unemployment.
Among the guests: some bird from ‘stenders and a model. So, an actress and a model to discuss the reality of employment? I wonder what crap jobs they’ve done that we can all now feel good about doing. Their contributions are pretty minimal; the model expresses almost indignant surprise that the students, above, in response to their first outing in today's show, can only speak English. Fine, blame the education system, not the unemployed. The actress from Eastenders turns out to be Danielle from Jamie's Dreamschool in which she showed zero interest or aptitude as an actress, despite Simon Callow being their teacher. In fact she won a trip to an American Biosphere project for her science work. Looks like that counted for nothing (did she even go? If not, what a waste!) as she got herself an agent, spent a few quid on acting lessons (presumably - I don't watch 'stenders, it's depressing and stupid), and cashed in her TV cache. All in time to appear on this show discussing nepotism. Am I missing something? Nepotism is one of the topics for discussion by the audience of entrepreneurs.
Tonight's jobs will be provided by Virgin Media and Scottish Power; all of which are not long term contracts so I don't know what happens when they come to an end. It wasn't made clear if this was a probation period; quite the opposite in fact, but no discussion of what happens afterwards at all. I’ve already commented about how suspicious this makes me. Agan the only applicants for these jobs were kids from this show - about 4 people are shown during the footage? Certainly they are the only applicants we see. It seems the jobs were advertised on the show's website; would they have existed otherwise - much like the vacancies in the Fairy Jobmonter! I would like to know why these companies chose to use this forum and not the wider labour market or DWP (assuming they didn't). It's easy, I know, to pass judgement here, but the media format and that, as I've said, it contributes to the ongoing anti-benefits tone of the national mood, leaves me very suspicious.
Now, and completely deadpan, a member of the Thai royal family makes the claim that nepotism isn’t an issue while talking about how successful he is having 3 businesses at age 23. Yes folks, it’s all about business. The business of blood. Aint’ it great though when other entirely random people offer singular anecdotes and propagate that as some kind of golden rule. That’s great, you’ve made a go of things, but how many people struggle? Especially when you live where the action is. If you don’t, then it becomes a lot harder. When you factor in a complete lack of support, or the fact that asking for support garners nothing but the resentment of the great and the good, it becomes even harder.This is the bottom line for me: people are different in every way and one size and thus one standard does not fit all.
More tomorrow from tonight; day 4 is the final night.
The problem I have are the messages it sends out, explicitly or implicitly. The audience is predominantly young and successful - other than the actual guests and participants the audience are all successful young entrepreneurs. Well that's great, but we can't all be businessmen, nor I believe should we. So what we get are a load of glib statements and platitudes as advice: 'you've just got to get off your arse and do it'. But that tells me nothing. Unemployment, like most social issues, is in fact complex because it affects each individual as an individual, but the systems in place simply cannot, and seemingly will not, deal with them on an individual basis. Yet people are happy to make a profit from it all. As a result people are inevitably fingered as 'lazy' or 'scroungers' because of society's media compelled need to make comparisons. 'You've just got to get off your arse...' is such a statement, it's saying 'compared to me and all the other hardworking taxpayers, you must conform to our expectations'.
But that isn't how people work. Some might benefit from that advice, other's won't. It's a crapshoot, and those that don't become increasingly isolated exacerbating the problems. The fact that society has become so conditioned by the anti-benefits message in the predominantly right wing media just makes it worse. People are now wholly intolerant of benefits that they are happy to see them work for their benefits, even though that completely undermines the social contract of work and impacts on real existing jobs - after all how many councils are going to need paid street cleaners, for instance, when they can get local scroungers to do it for them?
I could, have, and indeed will in the future, go on about this more. As an unemployed person, long term (there's no shame in this, I didn't invent the capitalist system that both thrives on and condemns people out of work, nor did i vote for it), I have never felt my needs met or supported in the arena of employment and the work experiences I've had, which have never been pandering or luxurious (cleaning and tillwork), have been equally isolating, low paid, and thankless. So with that in mind, and in the interests of examining the reality of this show, here's my writeup for day 3, same format as yesterday.
Ok we start off by talking about working overseas? Is this relevant? Today's reality tv skit features the four students working for a plush wedding planner. Their mission involves scoping a suitable venue at a profit, and then finding something to provide the 'wow factor' (that will the be ONLY time I will ever use that fucktacular phrase) for the hypothetical wedding. This involves jetting off to places like the cote d'azur, and the med. Just like we all have to when we sign on. Honestly, what is the point of this? In fact one audient pointed out that without the cameras would these people have gotten a foot in the door - same as with the jobs advertised and applied for in the Fairy Jobmother. Is it really fair for a tv show with its unreality and edits to perpetuate certain veiws about unemployment.
Among the guests: some bird from ‘stenders and a model. So, an actress and a model to discuss the reality of employment? I wonder what crap jobs they’ve done that we can all now feel good about doing. Their contributions are pretty minimal; the model expresses almost indignant surprise that the students, above, in response to their first outing in today's show, can only speak English. Fine, blame the education system, not the unemployed. The actress from Eastenders turns out to be Danielle from Jamie's Dreamschool in which she showed zero interest or aptitude as an actress, despite Simon Callow being their teacher. In fact she won a trip to an American Biosphere project for her science work. Looks like that counted for nothing (did she even go? If not, what a waste!) as she got herself an agent, spent a few quid on acting lessons (presumably - I don't watch 'stenders, it's depressing and stupid), and cashed in her TV cache. All in time to appear on this show discussing nepotism. Am I missing something? Nepotism is one of the topics for discussion by the audience of entrepreneurs.
Tonight's jobs will be provided by Virgin Media and Scottish Power; all of which are not long term contracts so I don't know what happens when they come to an end. It wasn't made clear if this was a probation period; quite the opposite in fact, but no discussion of what happens afterwards at all. I’ve already commented about how suspicious this makes me. Agan the only applicants for these jobs were kids from this show - about 4 people are shown during the footage? Certainly they are the only applicants we see. It seems the jobs were advertised on the show's website; would they have existed otherwise - much like the vacancies in the Fairy Jobmonter! I would like to know why these companies chose to use this forum and not the wider labour market or DWP (assuming they didn't). It's easy, I know, to pass judgement here, but the media format and that, as I've said, it contributes to the ongoing anti-benefits tone of the national mood, leaves me very suspicious.
Now, and completely deadpan, a member of the Thai royal family makes the claim that nepotism isn’t an issue while talking about how successful he is having 3 businesses at age 23. Yes folks, it’s all about business. The business of blood. Aint’ it great though when other entirely random people offer singular anecdotes and propagate that as some kind of golden rule. That’s great, you’ve made a go of things, but how many people struggle? Especially when you live where the action is. If you don’t, then it becomes a lot harder. When you factor in a complete lack of support, or the fact that asking for support garners nothing but the resentment of the great and the good, it becomes even harder.This is the bottom line for me: people are different in every way and one size and thus one standard does not fit all.
More tomorrow from tonight; day 4 is the final night.
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Up For Hire day 2
I gather this programme/event (provided you can get to the BBC studios of course, it's not a nationwide thing) runs every night on BBC 3 until Thursday. Here are some notes I made watching last night. I will do the same tonight.
Guests include Katie fucking Hopkins, apprentice loser and famed for being duplicitous and manipulative. A failed electoral candidate as well. Great role model. Somehow she stood as a local candidate in either the last election or last local election. The delightful Miss Hopkins didn't do well. But sadly that hasn't stopped her turning up like a bad penny on talking head panels to air her ridiculous Thatcherite generalisations as she did last night. At one point she even sprang to her feet as if possessed by the Iron Lady herself to hector the audience. But the question is: what does she do? I don't even remember her saying what she did while on the Apprentice except to say she had a gold card or some such useless bollocks.
Richard Bacon propagates the usual stereotypes regarding views on students. One of the evening's themes was the apparent uselessness of degrees. Now certainly there are many, myself included, that have had bad experience on courses that led nowhere. But that isn't the fault of the subject or even the course; it's the fault of a university that doesn't give a shit about supporting students and graduates that have paid them for the privilege. The usual suspects are trotted out under the banner of 'mickey mouse' degrees, with Katie Hopkins shouting the loudest. Here's what a sensible man says about it all.
A shot of one of the students in the reality part of the show concentrates on said student playing a video game in his house. Typical stereotyping: lazy kids playing video games. This was during the intro to the four subjects, the students partaking in the reality tv aspect of this show.
Tonight the reality section involves the four students running a shop each, completely out of the blue, untrained and unprepared. Oh noes, they have made mistakes and surprise surprise running a busy shop isn’t easy. Well fuck me! I don't get what I'm meant to learn from this? Who believes that running a business is something an inexperienced stranger can step into and do? The whole thing smacked of the Apprentice: a time limit and their performance judged on the profit margin attained within. That's it.
Katie Hopkins is now blathering and generalising. Fortunately her point, that people are mollycoddled, is refuted. Typical right wing claptrap. We have a government run by cosseted millionaires inheriting daddy’s dollar and they perpetuate this kind of bollocks.
Now on the chopping block: mickey mouse degrees again. Specifically, media courses…criticised on media presentation broadcast through a media outlet. Hmmmn.
Good god, it’s back to Katie Hopkins. I can’t keep up with this. More spurious cheap headlinery from the modern voice of Maggie Thatcher. Never mind education for the sake of knowledge.
Lots of anecdotes that are not representative of the whole picture. This is the audience participation factor. Now I find it odd because the audience, comprised of 'young people' (or people that have clearly bathed in the blood of virgins), all seem to be people that ended up doing nothing remotely linked to their studies (hence the mickey mouse degree discussion) and now are all entrepreneurs with a lot of people under them. All without exception; not just the guests (those guests that aren't media figures and rentagobs). All of them espousing a degree in the university of life. Well that's great if you have the nous, the ideas and more importantly the capital to start a business that will succeed. Don't seem to be hearing from those that haven't.
Reed and Next Step are agencies on hand providing a workshop. Next Step I have encountered before; they were quite happy for me to fill in a form for the referral to get their payment but offered nothing at all. Money for old rope.
Now the students are back running their shops. It feels like an Apprentice exercise. The experience is not representative of real life, day to day, in a shop; it’s just time restricted money making gimmickery.
Finally the show has ‘teamed up’ with some employers who are offering paid jobs to apply for. Just in time for Christmas, or is that too cynical? I saw none of these advertised locally so these are jobs only based in, presumably, London or Manchester or Birmingham (wherever the show is filmed). And oddly all the applicants were young people; so the implication is that these jobs were engineered for this programme in much the same way the jobs in Fairy Jobmother were. I didn't say anyone of my age, or older, applying (I'm 38).
More tonight, will make notes again.
Guests include Katie fucking Hopkins, apprentice loser and famed for being duplicitous and manipulative. A failed electoral candidate as well. Great role model. Somehow she stood as a local candidate in either the last election or last local election. The delightful Miss Hopkins didn't do well. But sadly that hasn't stopped her turning up like a bad penny on talking head panels to air her ridiculous Thatcherite generalisations as she did last night. At one point she even sprang to her feet as if possessed by the Iron Lady herself to hector the audience. But the question is: what does she do? I don't even remember her saying what she did while on the Apprentice except to say she had a gold card or some such useless bollocks.
Richard Bacon propagates the usual stereotypes regarding views on students. One of the evening's themes was the apparent uselessness of degrees. Now certainly there are many, myself included, that have had bad experience on courses that led nowhere. But that isn't the fault of the subject or even the course; it's the fault of a university that doesn't give a shit about supporting students and graduates that have paid them for the privilege. The usual suspects are trotted out under the banner of 'mickey mouse' degrees, with Katie Hopkins shouting the loudest. Here's what a sensible man says about it all.
A shot of one of the students in the reality part of the show concentrates on said student playing a video game in his house. Typical stereotyping: lazy kids playing video games. This was during the intro to the four subjects, the students partaking in the reality tv aspect of this show.
Tonight the reality section involves the four students running a shop each, completely out of the blue, untrained and unprepared. Oh noes, they have made mistakes and surprise surprise running a busy shop isn’t easy. Well fuck me! I don't get what I'm meant to learn from this? Who believes that running a business is something an inexperienced stranger can step into and do? The whole thing smacked of the Apprentice: a time limit and their performance judged on the profit margin attained within. That's it.
Katie Hopkins is now blathering and generalising. Fortunately her point, that people are mollycoddled, is refuted. Typical right wing claptrap. We have a government run by cosseted millionaires inheriting daddy’s dollar and they perpetuate this kind of bollocks.
Now on the chopping block: mickey mouse degrees again. Specifically, media courses…criticised on media presentation broadcast through a media outlet. Hmmmn.
Good god, it’s back to Katie Hopkins. I can’t keep up with this. More spurious cheap headlinery from the modern voice of Maggie Thatcher. Never mind education for the sake of knowledge.
Lots of anecdotes that are not representative of the whole picture. This is the audience participation factor. Now I find it odd because the audience, comprised of 'young people' (or people that have clearly bathed in the blood of virgins), all seem to be people that ended up doing nothing remotely linked to their studies (hence the mickey mouse degree discussion) and now are all entrepreneurs with a lot of people under them. All without exception; not just the guests (those guests that aren't media figures and rentagobs). All of them espousing a degree in the university of life. Well that's great if you have the nous, the ideas and more importantly the capital to start a business that will succeed. Don't seem to be hearing from those that haven't.
Reed and Next Step are agencies on hand providing a workshop. Next Step I have encountered before; they were quite happy for me to fill in a form for the referral to get their payment but offered nothing at all. Money for old rope.
Now the students are back running their shops. It feels like an Apprentice exercise. The experience is not representative of real life, day to day, in a shop; it’s just time restricted money making gimmickery.
Finally the show has ‘teamed up’ with some employers who are offering paid jobs to apply for. Just in time for Christmas, or is that too cynical? I saw none of these advertised locally so these are jobs only based in, presumably, London or Manchester or Birmingham (wherever the show is filmed). And oddly all the applicants were young people; so the implication is that these jobs were engineered for this programme in much the same way the jobs in Fairy Jobmother were. I didn't say anyone of my age, or older, applying (I'm 38).
More tonight, will make notes again.
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
WCA Changes
I have just come across this.
If this is going to be made law then by god we are in the mire. This subtle rule change will make it all but impossible for people to appeal any WCA decision, fair or otherwise. The right to appeal seems to me a basic right. How can this be even considered? It's utterly inhumane. But the reasons for it are obvious and it's right up the ideological alley of the slaphead twins at the DWP.
How much more are people to going to have to see before they realise just how evil this government is? People dependent on ESA for a living will of course have no choice but to forego an appeal (assuming that you can't claim JSA in the meantime - even that will be problematic as you will have to be fit and able to work and by so doing will tacitly be admitting such).
This is monstrous and we must spread the word.
If this is going to be made law then by god we are in the mire. This subtle rule change will make it all but impossible for people to appeal any WCA decision, fair or otherwise. The right to appeal seems to me a basic right. How can this be even considered? It's utterly inhumane. But the reasons for it are obvious and it's right up the ideological alley of the slaphead twins at the DWP.
How much more are people to going to have to see before they realise just how evil this government is? People dependent on ESA for a living will of course have no choice but to forego an appeal (assuming that you can't claim JSA in the meantime - even that will be problematic as you will have to be fit and able to work and by so doing will tacitly be admitting such).
This is monstrous and we must spread the word.
Up For Hire
(WARNING: I may edit this post as I see fit because my thoughts on this issue will develop and evolve, but I wanted to get something down before I lost interest.)
I chanced upon this last night by innocently flicking over to BBC3. This awful programme, ostensibly providing 'advice' and discussing student/post-grad unemployment, really wound me up. All it seemed to consist of was a competition to see who had the most and crappiest job history, including contributions from 'famous' people, including some Scottish woman that runs a knickers company (something we can all do, I'm sure), and Frankenstein's own drag act, comedian Russell Kane. What is he going to teach me, the need to achingly follow superficial concepts of appearance? That's great, but I don't want to wear mascara. The whole affair was hosted by Richard Bacon whose delivery is just awful; it's like listening to a stalling plane.
The programme featured 4 young people at least 3 were students with the other a young mum (i don' t know their exact circumstances, I missed that part). All out of work. They were then inducted into some reality tv segment featuring them given various jobs in a holiday/fun park of some kind. Taken completely out of their comfort zones we get to watch them manage as best they can with tasks such as becoming a performing clown (literally), working on the fast food joint with a queue of many unhappy looking campers eager to slosh transfats down their gullets, or mucking out at the petting zoo. One lad had to prepare 60 bags of candy floss (which is probably easy if you know how) in a time limit.
Naturally their efforts were met with varying degrees of success and failure, which is to be expected when you throw someone in at the deep end without any training, especially in a busy public environment. One girl, dressing up as a clown, made the mistake of commenting to the camera that she had a degree in journalism and that grease paint and oversized shoes weren't for her. How dare she! In this economic climate we need all the people throwing confetti instead of water that we can! Of course they edit the choice parts and leave the rest on the cutting room floor.
What amused me most was their 'boss' who took the whole thing so unbelievably seriously as to be a caricature. When the lad fell short of his candy floss target the guy seemed to take personal umbrage - this is the real world son! Fuck off is it, it's a farcical parody edited to make a bunch of reasonably smart, articulate, and well behaved young people look like lazy slobs. Their only mistake was the young mum (their names, I know not) who, after working on the till of the burger joint during rush hour, received second hand criticism that she was 'abrupt' despite being very friendly with the public the rest of the time. Is this how we treat people now? Stick inexperienced people into a busy unfamiliar role with a queue of slack jawed transfat junkies and when they fail to wear their smile 100% all the time like a beaming ray of perpetual sunshine we berate them. Unfortunately for her she got defensive - with all the cameras - but then who wouldn't. Are we made of stone? No encouragement, no support. Sink or swim.
But that's what it is these days. In this era of competitive mas unemployment it's sink or swim and we've mortgaged the life jackets, bad luck.
The whole programme just smacked of this kind of grim competitiveness that I hate. We were not meant to live like this. When there are hundreds applying for a single position the odds are that any one candidate will fail - no matter how competent they individually may be. Isn't that the situation that needs addressing? No we just seek to find fault: their CV is one word too long, or too short. Their hair needs cutting. This or that. Employers don't have time to read a thousand CV's. Well make time! You want applicants, what do you expect?
Now we hear a bunch of people, such as miss millionaire from ultimo knickers, tell these kids they should be prepared to do anything - such as dress up as a clown or feed goats. Yet that's exactly what they did and have done - and where has it gotten them.
If we all subscribe to this race to the bottom what's left? The issues surrounding this social disaster of a state we currently live in are not beign addressed. Why can't someone that's trained as a reporter be given an opportunity to be...a reporter? What good will it do her to force her to work as a fucking clown? Are we all meant to be grateful for whatever crumbs the pigs throw us from the table as they snuffle at the trough that anyone not willing to lick more toilets than their neighbour is now seen as public enemy number one? If we want a better society with better standards for ourselves and subsequent generations then we are going to have to start demanding them, and not pumping out puerile crap such as Up For Hire. No, far better to get people to seriously consider walking around town adorned with sandwich boards, just as Hayley Taylor recommended in her awful Fairy Jobmother show. It's the same thing. The same kind of hectoring rubbish that avoids the real issues in the way our masters avoid taxes while telling us we have to 'take responsibility' (this kind of avoiding the issue is something Cameron is very good at).
I chanced upon this last night by innocently flicking over to BBC3. This awful programme, ostensibly providing 'advice' and discussing student/post-grad unemployment, really wound me up. All it seemed to consist of was a competition to see who had the most and crappiest job history, including contributions from 'famous' people, including some Scottish woman that runs a knickers company (something we can all do, I'm sure), and Frankenstein's own drag act, comedian Russell Kane. What is he going to teach me, the need to achingly follow superficial concepts of appearance? That's great, but I don't want to wear mascara. The whole affair was hosted by Richard Bacon whose delivery is just awful; it's like listening to a stalling plane.
The programme featured 4 young people at least 3 were students with the other a young mum (i don' t know their exact circumstances, I missed that part). All out of work. They were then inducted into some reality tv segment featuring them given various jobs in a holiday/fun park of some kind. Taken completely out of their comfort zones we get to watch them manage as best they can with tasks such as becoming a performing clown (literally), working on the fast food joint with a queue of many unhappy looking campers eager to slosh transfats down their gullets, or mucking out at the petting zoo. One lad had to prepare 60 bags of candy floss (which is probably easy if you know how) in a time limit.
Naturally their efforts were met with varying degrees of success and failure, which is to be expected when you throw someone in at the deep end without any training, especially in a busy public environment. One girl, dressing up as a clown, made the mistake of commenting to the camera that she had a degree in journalism and that grease paint and oversized shoes weren't for her. How dare she! In this economic climate we need all the people throwing confetti instead of water that we can! Of course they edit the choice parts and leave the rest on the cutting room floor.
What amused me most was their 'boss' who took the whole thing so unbelievably seriously as to be a caricature. When the lad fell short of his candy floss target the guy seemed to take personal umbrage - this is the real world son! Fuck off is it, it's a farcical parody edited to make a bunch of reasonably smart, articulate, and well behaved young people look like lazy slobs. Their only mistake was the young mum (their names, I know not) who, after working on the till of the burger joint during rush hour, received second hand criticism that she was 'abrupt' despite being very friendly with the public the rest of the time. Is this how we treat people now? Stick inexperienced people into a busy unfamiliar role with a queue of slack jawed transfat junkies and when they fail to wear their smile 100% all the time like a beaming ray of perpetual sunshine we berate them. Unfortunately for her she got defensive - with all the cameras - but then who wouldn't. Are we made of stone? No encouragement, no support. Sink or swim.
But that's what it is these days. In this era of competitive mas unemployment it's sink or swim and we've mortgaged the life jackets, bad luck.
The whole programme just smacked of this kind of grim competitiveness that I hate. We were not meant to live like this. When there are hundreds applying for a single position the odds are that any one candidate will fail - no matter how competent they individually may be. Isn't that the situation that needs addressing? No we just seek to find fault: their CV is one word too long, or too short. Their hair needs cutting. This or that. Employers don't have time to read a thousand CV's. Well make time! You want applicants, what do you expect?
Now we hear a bunch of people, such as miss millionaire from ultimo knickers, tell these kids they should be prepared to do anything - such as dress up as a clown or feed goats. Yet that's exactly what they did and have done - and where has it gotten them.
If we all subscribe to this race to the bottom what's left? The issues surrounding this social disaster of a state we currently live in are not beign addressed. Why can't someone that's trained as a reporter be given an opportunity to be...a reporter? What good will it do her to force her to work as a fucking clown? Are we all meant to be grateful for whatever crumbs the pigs throw us from the table as they snuffle at the trough that anyone not willing to lick more toilets than their neighbour is now seen as public enemy number one? If we want a better society with better standards for ourselves and subsequent generations then we are going to have to start demanding them, and not pumping out puerile crap such as Up For Hire. No, far better to get people to seriously consider walking around town adorned with sandwich boards, just as Hayley Taylor recommended in her awful Fairy Jobmother show. It's the same thing. The same kind of hectoring rubbish that avoids the real issues in the way our masters avoid taxes while telling us we have to 'take responsibility' (this kind of avoiding the issue is something Cameron is very good at).
Monday, 17 October 2011
Monday Musings, Oh My!
A debate on 5Live has just wound me up - again. I don't really know why I listen to Nicky Campbell's half arsed breakfast 'discussion' since it is conducive to neither. Most of the time (ie, all the time) it is a series of meaningless unhelpful anecdotes contributed by professional curtain twitchers. The sort of people the government wants to encourage as the Big Society to rat on their neighbours out of a sense of envy (rather than actual evidence of benefit fraud or terrorism).
Yet again Peter Hitchens, one of the regular cabal of contributors wheeled in to foster 'robust' debate by talking shit, declares he knows best. The discussion is about whether or not there is poverty in Britain. As if there's a question of this with people dependent on increasingly dwindling welfare payments and food parcels as well as facing mass eviction resulting from housing benefit caps. But of course Hitchens knows best by comparing the lot of modern Britons, with our technological advancements, to that of people living here a hundred years ago, or people in the developing world right now. Spurious comparisons to say the least; a smartphone is no comfort when you can't pay the bills, but it's easy to point at someone using one as evidence of Britain's lack of poverty.
I get so angry at these stupid discussions. I've shouted at the radio (and the TV on Sunday mornings, though partly because Susanna Reid's legs are in direct proportion to her sheer banality as a presenter) more times than I care to admit. I've even complained to the BBC about Kelvin Mackenzie (after his rabid call for kids to be shot by riot police). But what good does it do? They don't care; winding up people is their stock in trade. It's classic bullying really; sheer provocation for its own sake.
Despite Hitchens' ignorance and continual blaming all the woes of the world on the 'liberal left' (he thinks crime was invented in the 50's by such people), things are getting worse. A semantic debate on whether the word poverty is the right word to describe the circumstances of some in the western world serves no purpose. It's just pushing the meat around the plate without chewing the fat. Things are going to get a lot worse; as one caller pointed out, it's a time bomb with housing benefit and mass evictions looming. The economy, as far as I can tell (i'm no expert), is certainly not going to recover and welfare reforms are continuing, even though most of them seem to be Tories taking credit for Labour schemes (what else is the Work Programme but a rebranding of the New Deal? Same people, same schemes, same results).
Now we have Grant Shapps, a feeble right wing faceman, as housing minister using the old house swap scheme of social housing to reinvigorate the spirit of Norman Tebbit. IDS has already tried to encourage people to 'get on their bikes' again, about a year ago. Now there's to be a house swap scheme for people in deprived areas to access jobs elsewhere in the country. How the hell does this work? What's in it for the people in the desired locations to swap? What do they get out of it - move to a deprived area? As usual, it's ill considered and on the hoof.
But there's something about this kind of politics that makes me think there's some kind of intelligence at work (ie malevolence). By throwing out these ideas, no matter how half baked or whether they actually exist as processes and schemes, they can further distract people from the reality: that they aren't in control and have no idea. Anyone that criticises these schemes is just a naysayer at best, and at worst a lazy scrounger. That's the tenor of debate these days.
I recieved a hefty form from the DWP in the post over the weekend. The accompanying letter wants me to fill it in so they can confirm they are paying me the correct amount of benefit (they are). The form is the basic JSA application form in it's entirety which needs to be returned on time or my benefit will be stopped, er!
I applied for the Asda position forced on me when I signed on Friday; a 16 hour a week job on the chilled counter (no Brian Eno, I fear). What a dead end job. Now look, I'm not against earning a living or being economically active, but I have NO interest in Asda, supermarkets, or serving people cold food. It's a part time job as well that's at best a foot in the door for people that do want these jobs. So why am I being forced to compete with those people? Anyway the job involved an online application that failed at the point their software demanded I own and thus input a mobile phone number. I don't have a mobile phone, I can't apply. Oh dear, lazy me.
There was also a position advertised on the DWP website for ATOS. Now I wouldn't want to work for those crooks for all the tea in China (though I did get £25 compensation for them mucking up my benefit claim last year). Interestingly though advertised as a job locally (Bristol), the link provided was for a job in Sheffield that no longer existed.
In all seriousness what is the point of having everyone that's unemployed competing for the same, increasingly fewer jobs. I'm sure I've said this before, but this is a fool's errand. It might seem reasonable to the right wing to have individual claimants applying for as many jobs as they can (which of course in their eyes will never be enough), but all this does is force the unemployed into increasing levels of direct competition so that someone that does want to work for Asda (and there must be someone) with people that don't. The employer wont' necessarily take on the former, either! Why are we not properly focusing efforts individually and helping people properly without fear of funding the 'lifestyle' of 'scroungers'. Support people properly, I say. Jumping through endless hoops to appease the right wing ringmasters in the daily mail circus is not the way to go.
Yet again Peter Hitchens, one of the regular cabal of contributors wheeled in to foster 'robust' debate by talking shit, declares he knows best. The discussion is about whether or not there is poverty in Britain. As if there's a question of this with people dependent on increasingly dwindling welfare payments and food parcels as well as facing mass eviction resulting from housing benefit caps. But of course Hitchens knows best by comparing the lot of modern Britons, with our technological advancements, to that of people living here a hundred years ago, or people in the developing world right now. Spurious comparisons to say the least; a smartphone is no comfort when you can't pay the bills, but it's easy to point at someone using one as evidence of Britain's lack of poverty.
I get so angry at these stupid discussions. I've shouted at the radio (and the TV on Sunday mornings, though partly because Susanna Reid's legs are in direct proportion to her sheer banality as a presenter) more times than I care to admit. I've even complained to the BBC about Kelvin Mackenzie (after his rabid call for kids to be shot by riot police). But what good does it do? They don't care; winding up people is their stock in trade. It's classic bullying really; sheer provocation for its own sake.
Despite Hitchens' ignorance and continual blaming all the woes of the world on the 'liberal left' (he thinks crime was invented in the 50's by such people), things are getting worse. A semantic debate on whether the word poverty is the right word to describe the circumstances of some in the western world serves no purpose. It's just pushing the meat around the plate without chewing the fat. Things are going to get a lot worse; as one caller pointed out, it's a time bomb with housing benefit and mass evictions looming. The economy, as far as I can tell (i'm no expert), is certainly not going to recover and welfare reforms are continuing, even though most of them seem to be Tories taking credit for Labour schemes (what else is the Work Programme but a rebranding of the New Deal? Same people, same schemes, same results).
Now we have Grant Shapps, a feeble right wing faceman, as housing minister using the old house swap scheme of social housing to reinvigorate the spirit of Norman Tebbit. IDS has already tried to encourage people to 'get on their bikes' again, about a year ago. Now there's to be a house swap scheme for people in deprived areas to access jobs elsewhere in the country. How the hell does this work? What's in it for the people in the desired locations to swap? What do they get out of it - move to a deprived area? As usual, it's ill considered and on the hoof.
But there's something about this kind of politics that makes me think there's some kind of intelligence at work (ie malevolence). By throwing out these ideas, no matter how half baked or whether they actually exist as processes and schemes, they can further distract people from the reality: that they aren't in control and have no idea. Anyone that criticises these schemes is just a naysayer at best, and at worst a lazy scrounger. That's the tenor of debate these days.
I recieved a hefty form from the DWP in the post over the weekend. The accompanying letter wants me to fill it in so they can confirm they are paying me the correct amount of benefit (they are). The form is the basic JSA application form in it's entirety which needs to be returned on time or my benefit will be stopped, er!
I applied for the Asda position forced on me when I signed on Friday; a 16 hour a week job on the chilled counter (no Brian Eno, I fear). What a dead end job. Now look, I'm not against earning a living or being economically active, but I have NO interest in Asda, supermarkets, or serving people cold food. It's a part time job as well that's at best a foot in the door for people that do want these jobs. So why am I being forced to compete with those people? Anyway the job involved an online application that failed at the point their software demanded I own and thus input a mobile phone number. I don't have a mobile phone, I can't apply. Oh dear, lazy me.
There was also a position advertised on the DWP website for ATOS. Now I wouldn't want to work for those crooks for all the tea in China (though I did get £25 compensation for them mucking up my benefit claim last year). Interestingly though advertised as a job locally (Bristol), the link provided was for a job in Sheffield that no longer existed.
In all seriousness what is the point of having everyone that's unemployed competing for the same, increasingly fewer jobs. I'm sure I've said this before, but this is a fool's errand. It might seem reasonable to the right wing to have individual claimants applying for as many jobs as they can (which of course in their eyes will never be enough), but all this does is force the unemployed into increasing levels of direct competition so that someone that does want to work for Asda (and there must be someone) with people that don't. The employer wont' necessarily take on the former, either! Why are we not properly focusing efforts individually and helping people properly without fear of funding the 'lifestyle' of 'scroungers'. Support people properly, I say. Jumping through endless hoops to appease the right wing ringmasters in the daily mail circus is not the way to go.
Friday, 14 October 2011
Hate Mail
Signed on this morning. The adviser wasn't present today so it was converted to a 'regular' (as if there's a difference) signing. Unfortunately I got the pedantic middle aged woman that I don't enjoy seeing. She isn't particularly unpleasant, but just a bit too pedantic: the sort that makes things just that bit more hard work than is ever necessary. I'm greeted by her pulling out a piece of paper that seems to confuse her and affords her the opportunity to screw up her face - something she does a lot, as if she's perpetually surrounded by a bad smell.
Turns out that Tesco didn't like my email address (not the one attached to this site, my much much older hotmail account that I use for casual mail - and job applications). Now that email address isn't offensive, it's from a lyric "emissary of the crystal who makes the sign of the serpent". I just like the song, and I prefer my email addresses to have a bit of imagination, rather than my name and a number representing the fact that I'm the ten thousandth person to come up with such an original moniker. She fusses over this fact telling me I need to sort out a new email account because this one is bad for business (no one else has complained) and employers don't like it, blah blah blah. Honestly what a load of pathetic nonsense; i could understand if it was 'tescorwankers@whatever'. So much for a tiny bit of creativity and individuality in our lives. Nope the jobcentre hath spoken and big business tells them to tell me they seem to find dealing with someone called signoftheserpent a frightening and possibly satanic (yes, that's right - hide your goats!) ordeal. Not that Tesco could contact me personally of course (and pointing this out seemed to invoke a load of administrative bollocks). The jobcentre also knew about this a month ago, but never chose to tell me, despite seemingly taking this - now - very seriously.
It's all so very pathetic.
Turns out that Tesco didn't like my email address (not the one attached to this site, my much much older hotmail account that I use for casual mail - and job applications). Now that email address isn't offensive, it's from a lyric "emissary of the crystal who makes the sign of the serpent". I just like the song, and I prefer my email addresses to have a bit of imagination, rather than my name and a number representing the fact that I'm the ten thousandth person to come up with such an original moniker. She fusses over this fact telling me I need to sort out a new email account because this one is bad for business (no one else has complained) and employers don't like it, blah blah blah. Honestly what a load of pathetic nonsense; i could understand if it was 'tescorwankers@whatever'. So much for a tiny bit of creativity and individuality in our lives. Nope the jobcentre hath spoken and big business tells them to tell me they seem to find dealing with someone called signoftheserpent a frightening and possibly satanic (yes, that's right - hide your goats!) ordeal. Not that Tesco could contact me personally of course (and pointing this out seemed to invoke a load of administrative bollocks). The jobcentre also knew about this a month ago, but never chose to tell me, despite seemingly taking this - now - very seriously.
It's all so very pathetic.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
The Gravy Train
Went to the doctor (as the song goes...) yesterday. Stress levels and anxiety are increased since last week. It's hard for people to understand; the sense of pervasive dread dealing with the welfare system and living in this increasingly hate filled society. It clouds your mind. That's how I feel; like a fog in my head all the time. You can't think clearly - specifically you can't think beyond a single issue that fills your consciousness. It's not conducive to a healthy state of being. A general feeling of being on the edge; of not being able to cope. How is the Work Programme supposed to help with this? I explained it all to the GP in a way that I think he might be starting to get, though he can't do anything. I'm still waiting on an asperger's diagnosis. Getting these things done is key to getting help because the system is all about ticking the box to open up doors.
I have to sign on this Friday. It's that time again. The dread is starting to build, like an impending emotional eclipse. Is this how people like me are supposed to live? Where is the help? I suspect that I will be sent to the Work Programme, but I have been anticipating that possibility for a while as it's always been on the horizon. Frankly I'm dreading that as well. I don't want to have to attend another office, filled with people I don't know (as well as staff motivated by money and not experience or trained in individual needs). I also don't want to have to explain to these people the bus schedule when having to tell them I can't make certain appointment slots and times because the buses don't run.
What I would like is that which the system is supposed to be: individually tailored and flexible to personal needs. What I don't want is what Working Links was (to whom I was referred when i started claiming ESA a couple of years ago). At first they made all the right noises and were sympathetic and helpful when I rang them to voice my concerns in light of the JC's lurid referral and it's threats of benefit termination upon non compliance. Even the first (of five) appointment was positive; the lady told me that if we agreed it wasn't going to work, having voiced my concerns these people weren't doctors and that my problems needed therapy of some kind not jobsearching, we could call it quits. She even assured me there'd be no comeback from the JC as they would explain it wasn't me not complying; it would be Working Links saying they couldn't help me.
That all changed from the second interview onwards. It changed completely 180 degrees. I was asked what I was interested in and what I would like to do, etc, and was met with a brick wall of complete disinterest. They couldn't help with this that or the other. When I then said that I would like to call it quits as it clearly wasn't productive I was accused of calling her a liar and she 'wasn't a liar'. And from there it went downhill; appointment times were poorly kept, appointments would overrun and I would be blamed for that. I was offered telephone appointments which, when I said 'could I think about it' was told that i had to give an answer there and then, like a gameshow contestant. Demanded an answer, to be more accurate (because she had a meeting to go to and I wouldn't be able to ring her back later on that day, apparently). I did agree to telephone consultations only to find she manipulated her schedule and deliberately called me way earlier than was agreed with no effort to call me back at agreed times. When I subsequently rang to find out what happened I got the blame as if it was my fault I was late or something. I remember asking about financial help (their website advertised help through their listed case studies including paying for use of a driving simulator and another guy to have his guitar repaired as he wanted to teach guitar) and had that thrown back in my face because what I was looking for wouldn't directly get me work (unlike the above examples of course). Everything was met with an attitude of 'you're not engaging with the process', in fact this point was made explicitly, even though I was attending all the appointments and punctually and telling them what they wanted to know. Just not what they wanted to hear.
Truth is all they wanted was people to turn up, sit in their 'job club' and use their facilities to search the crappy DWP site for jobs in local supermarkets. Easy money for them; we all know how it works.
I don't want to go through all that kind of crap again, and certainly not for two years.
Interestingly, at the time I had self referred (ie without JC help) to a local branch of Tomorrow's People. Appointments with them were made in a private and altogether more suitable facility (the Carlton Centre, Weston super Mare). The advisor was much more amenable, friendly and realistic (ie she knew what was on the cards and that it was all about funding). When I was referred to Working Stinks there was initially a conflict of interest: the JC+ want me to attend the people they pay which potentially meant having to forfeit the people I was already seeing. Even though this didn't happen, thankfully, the logical option would have been for the DWP to facilitate me seeing whom I had already established a relationship with, but that was never on the table. So I ended up seeing both. They were pretty appalled about Working Links and I was told about word of mouth of similar experiences (for what it's worth, to be fair).
This is the unemployment gravy train. People say that the unemployed don't contribute economically; they are dead weight. That's bullshit. They are the motivating force for this entire industry - and that's what it is. Companies such as WL are coining it in through these contracts and their relationship with the government of the day and we are losing out. They make money at our expense. So who really is the true scrounger?
I have to sign on this Friday. It's that time again. The dread is starting to build, like an impending emotional eclipse. Is this how people like me are supposed to live? Where is the help? I suspect that I will be sent to the Work Programme, but I have been anticipating that possibility for a while as it's always been on the horizon. Frankly I'm dreading that as well. I don't want to have to attend another office, filled with people I don't know (as well as staff motivated by money and not experience or trained in individual needs). I also don't want to have to explain to these people the bus schedule when having to tell them I can't make certain appointment slots and times because the buses don't run.
What I would like is that which the system is supposed to be: individually tailored and flexible to personal needs. What I don't want is what Working Links was (to whom I was referred when i started claiming ESA a couple of years ago). At first they made all the right noises and were sympathetic and helpful when I rang them to voice my concerns in light of the JC's lurid referral and it's threats of benefit termination upon non compliance. Even the first (of five) appointment was positive; the lady told me that if we agreed it wasn't going to work, having voiced my concerns these people weren't doctors and that my problems needed therapy of some kind not jobsearching, we could call it quits. She even assured me there'd be no comeback from the JC as they would explain it wasn't me not complying; it would be Working Links saying they couldn't help me.
That all changed from the second interview onwards. It changed completely 180 degrees. I was asked what I was interested in and what I would like to do, etc, and was met with a brick wall of complete disinterest. They couldn't help with this that or the other. When I then said that I would like to call it quits as it clearly wasn't productive I was accused of calling her a liar and she 'wasn't a liar'. And from there it went downhill; appointment times were poorly kept, appointments would overrun and I would be blamed for that. I was offered telephone appointments which, when I said 'could I think about it' was told that i had to give an answer there and then, like a gameshow contestant. Demanded an answer, to be more accurate (because she had a meeting to go to and I wouldn't be able to ring her back later on that day, apparently). I did agree to telephone consultations only to find she manipulated her schedule and deliberately called me way earlier than was agreed with no effort to call me back at agreed times. When I subsequently rang to find out what happened I got the blame as if it was my fault I was late or something. I remember asking about financial help (their website advertised help through their listed case studies including paying for use of a driving simulator and another guy to have his guitar repaired as he wanted to teach guitar) and had that thrown back in my face because what I was looking for wouldn't directly get me work (unlike the above examples of course). Everything was met with an attitude of 'you're not engaging with the process', in fact this point was made explicitly, even though I was attending all the appointments and punctually and telling them what they wanted to know. Just not what they wanted to hear.
Truth is all they wanted was people to turn up, sit in their 'job club' and use their facilities to search the crappy DWP site for jobs in local supermarkets. Easy money for them; we all know how it works.
I don't want to go through all that kind of crap again, and certainly not for two years.
Interestingly, at the time I had self referred (ie without JC help) to a local branch of Tomorrow's People. Appointments with them were made in a private and altogether more suitable facility (the Carlton Centre, Weston super Mare). The advisor was much more amenable, friendly and realistic (ie she knew what was on the cards and that it was all about funding). When I was referred to Working Stinks there was initially a conflict of interest: the JC+ want me to attend the people they pay which potentially meant having to forfeit the people I was already seeing. Even though this didn't happen, thankfully, the logical option would have been for the DWP to facilitate me seeing whom I had already established a relationship with, but that was never on the table. So I ended up seeing both. They were pretty appalled about Working Links and I was told about word of mouth of similar experiences (for what it's worth, to be fair).
This is the unemployment gravy train. People say that the unemployed don't contribute economically; they are dead weight. That's bullshit. They are the motivating force for this entire industry - and that's what it is. Companies such as WL are coining it in through these contracts and their relationship with the government of the day and we are losing out. They make money at our expense. So who really is the true scrounger?
Thursday, 6 October 2011
To the Dogs
I actually had the opportunity to apologise to that 'gentleman' I had the misfortune to encounter the other day. I'm not too proud to apologise, though quite frankly I felt I was apologising for far more than I deserved to. He wasn't terribly interested; just said 'don't worry about it' and walked on. Obviously me hoping he might bother to reciprocate given his appalling abusive and aggressive attitude was too much to ask, but that's no reason for me not to behave properly - or at least try to. The only thing I really had to apologise for was not walking away. In the words of the immortal Bill Hicks: "if it's a piece of shit, walk away". Nuff said. Sometimes though situations just trigger a well of frustration within, and that's what happened. I lost the plot. Sadly that patch of ground is well trodden by irresponsible dog walkers who variously let their dogs run riot regardless of other people and just shit all over it. It's also subject to pointless amounts of litter and some petty vandalism. It's just so sad to see such pleasant environments go...to the dogs. They are there for all to enjoy, and we all pay for them (well not me of course, as I'm a grubby scrounger).
All this has served to trigger my mental anxiety and long term paranoia to a new level. I've mad an appointment with the doctor for Monday. I'm so unfocused (or rather, negatively focused; I can't think straight and my sleep is as erratic as usual) I can't concentrate on my exercise. People don't get problems like these: I don't have any physical symptoms (other than looking perpetually stoned, to my great chagrin, because i have poor eyes) and can usually string a sentence together. Ergo there's no excuse for not having a job, blah blah blah. But that's just not how it works. I can't switch off my emotional state or edit my feelings like Mr Spock, and I'm not some giddy schoolkid either. This is real life. Expecting people to just get on and work, never mind the reality of unemployment for the focused and the hearty, is so far removed from reality as to be wilfully ignorant.
Hopefully I can get some help. There was a local outreach meeting last week which I attended and explained my sorry situation. That seemed positive. So when they meet and discuss the possibility of referrals there may be a chance of support. Given how the system and the state works, it's about ticking the right boxes so you can move into a positive space and be helped. Otherwise you're a scrounger.
All this has served to trigger my mental anxiety and long term paranoia to a new level. I've mad an appointment with the doctor for Monday. I'm so unfocused (or rather, negatively focused; I can't think straight and my sleep is as erratic as usual) I can't concentrate on my exercise. People don't get problems like these: I don't have any physical symptoms (other than looking perpetually stoned, to my great chagrin, because i have poor eyes) and can usually string a sentence together. Ergo there's no excuse for not having a job, blah blah blah. But that's just not how it works. I can't switch off my emotional state or edit my feelings like Mr Spock, and I'm not some giddy schoolkid either. This is real life. Expecting people to just get on and work, never mind the reality of unemployment for the focused and the hearty, is so far removed from reality as to be wilfully ignorant.
Hopefully I can get some help. There was a local outreach meeting last week which I attended and explained my sorry situation. That seemed positive. So when they meet and discuss the possibility of referrals there may be a chance of support. Given how the system and the state works, it's about ticking the right boxes so you can move into a positive space and be helped. Otherwise you're a scrounger.
Monday, 3 October 2011
Gone to the Dogs (now with added cussing)
Warning: this is a self indulgent narcissistic rant and a lesson in self control, even if the other guy was a prize twat. You've always got to make allowances for twats because you just can't second guess their behaviour...
Went for a cycle down the lanes/cycle path after dinner. It's a little habit I have while the weather is pleasant and the nights aren't too long. Helps me think.
Unfortunately that particular lane, for a while, has been used as a toilet for many of the dogs walked by inconsiderate owners, despite a campaign to draw attention to it's unpleasantness (as if you'd need such things). There's also a lot of vandalism that goes on up there which I cannot explain: some people are just hellbent on shitting on their own doorsteps - and so are their dogs.
Anyway this one guy walks past while I stop to have a ponder. At this point I suspect he has a dog with him, though I can't quite see. He walks past, no problem. I don't see a dog until the tiny little thing jumps out of the hedge beside me forcing me to brake hard.
"For fucks sake mate, I nearly flattened your dog!"
He doesn't even turn around: "fuck off you twat."
I lose it. Not a good situation to be in with an anxiety and stress problem. I've lived a life of being on the shitty end of the stick, albeit in small ways, many times. It wears you down, blunts your patience and sharpens your sense of inequality. I don't use it as an excuse, I should have walked away. But there are times when that sense of personal injustice takes over. I'm not proud of it. I speed back to catch up with this clown, I'm incandescent.
"Fucking hell mate your dog jumped right out in front of me"
I can't remember the exact words of the interchange. He thinks, clearly, I'm just behaving like a jumped up moron. He doesn't seem to care that I nearly killed his dog and seems visibly inconvenienced that I'm daring to challenge him. He walks off and I call him a cunt. He then turns around charges toward me fist raised and almost..."what did you call me, you cunt."
"Oh it's ok for you to call me a twat then is it."
Yeah it's pretty stupid.
Nothing either of us should be proud of, though I doubt he cares. He didn't seem too bothered i nearly killed his pet. Didn't even stop to look back when I first cycled past just to make sure his dog didn't get in the way (and I'm not exactly rocketing past like Carl Fogharty).
A ridiculous situation you'll agree I'm sure, but that's how it is these days. The male psyche has been manipulated and twisted into this monster. I'm not blameless, but it's just typical of people round here now. It used to be a nice place. People have grown selfish (dog owners uniquely so) and just don't care anymore. I'm sick of it. Despite my stupidity in not walking away when I should have, I don't provoke trouble; I smile at folk, mind my p's and q's and happily step to one side to let people past. I also don't shit all over the cycle path either.
What's happened to our society? Years of greed, manipulated aspiration, rolling news, twenty four seven media programming have bred a nation that cries when it's team loses and then embarks on a rampage, its kids go on the riot while the keepers of laws break them repeatedly and with impunity. Is there a point of no return. Have we passed it?
Went for a cycle down the lanes/cycle path after dinner. It's a little habit I have while the weather is pleasant and the nights aren't too long. Helps me think.
Unfortunately that particular lane, for a while, has been used as a toilet for many of the dogs walked by inconsiderate owners, despite a campaign to draw attention to it's unpleasantness (as if you'd need such things). There's also a lot of vandalism that goes on up there which I cannot explain: some people are just hellbent on shitting on their own doorsteps - and so are their dogs.
Anyway this one guy walks past while I stop to have a ponder. At this point I suspect he has a dog with him, though I can't quite see. He walks past, no problem. I don't see a dog until the tiny little thing jumps out of the hedge beside me forcing me to brake hard.
"For fucks sake mate, I nearly flattened your dog!"
He doesn't even turn around: "fuck off you twat."
I lose it. Not a good situation to be in with an anxiety and stress problem. I've lived a life of being on the shitty end of the stick, albeit in small ways, many times. It wears you down, blunts your patience and sharpens your sense of inequality. I don't use it as an excuse, I should have walked away. But there are times when that sense of personal injustice takes over. I'm not proud of it. I speed back to catch up with this clown, I'm incandescent.
"Fucking hell mate your dog jumped right out in front of me"
I can't remember the exact words of the interchange. He thinks, clearly, I'm just behaving like a jumped up moron. He doesn't seem to care that I nearly killed his dog and seems visibly inconvenienced that I'm daring to challenge him. He walks off and I call him a cunt. He then turns around charges toward me fist raised and almost..."what did you call me, you cunt."
"Oh it's ok for you to call me a twat then is it."
Yeah it's pretty stupid.
Nothing either of us should be proud of, though I doubt he cares. He didn't seem too bothered i nearly killed his pet. Didn't even stop to look back when I first cycled past just to make sure his dog didn't get in the way (and I'm not exactly rocketing past like Carl Fogharty).
A ridiculous situation you'll agree I'm sure, but that's how it is these days. The male psyche has been manipulated and twisted into this monster. I'm not blameless, but it's just typical of people round here now. It used to be a nice place. People have grown selfish (dog owners uniquely so) and just don't care anymore. I'm sick of it. Despite my stupidity in not walking away when I should have, I don't provoke trouble; I smile at folk, mind my p's and q's and happily step to one side to let people past. I also don't shit all over the cycle path either.
What's happened to our society? Years of greed, manipulated aspiration, rolling news, twenty four seven media programming have bred a nation that cries when it's team loses and then embarks on a rampage, its kids go on the riot while the keepers of laws break them repeatedly and with impunity. Is there a point of no return. Have we passed it?
Saturday, 1 October 2011
On and on it goes
This piece from the Guardian yet again highlights yet again the increased pressure on people with nothing. When will this endless hatred change? When are the poor ever going to get their chance? For god's sake, at what point will this vile crusade end? We already have people killing themselves thanks to ATOS. Now some right wing 'think' tank puts forward again the lie that welfare is all about a 'poisonous' something for nothing system. These idiots wouldn't know reality if it shook them by the hand. We've had riots, we've got no growth, we've got unemployment rising - still, and the genius minds at the Policy Exchange want to tell the unemployed they must do MORE for their pittance allowance. Apparently looking in newspapers shouldn't count as searching for a job for the purpose of fulfilling the JSAg. Good advice guys: now people won't even bother.
What do these cunts want us to do? What does count as looking for work? They of course don't say. They aren't interested in providing solutions only kicking at the crutches and depriving people who already have nothing. I'm not going to justify myself here, but if these idiots can't even recommend the DWP fix it's own hopeless job search site how can they criticise the entire system and those claiming. Some people will have access to more facilities than others - people in cities over those in rural areas for instance. I rely on the Internet for job searching, no doubt that isn't enough. Well tough shit.
I say it's high time to fight back. Let's send a message to these pompous pricks and give them something to really think about. You want the poor to starve in the gutter? Then be prepared for the consequences. Deprivation is the breeding ground of riots and such. These cretins are fast tracking anti social behaviour that will make august look like a damp Monday morning.
What do these cunts want us to do? What does count as looking for work? They of course don't say. They aren't interested in providing solutions only kicking at the crutches and depriving people who already have nothing. I'm not going to justify myself here, but if these idiots can't even recommend the DWP fix it's own hopeless job search site how can they criticise the entire system and those claiming. Some people will have access to more facilities than others - people in cities over those in rural areas for instance. I rely on the Internet for job searching, no doubt that isn't enough. Well tough shit.
I say it's high time to fight back. Let's send a message to these pompous pricks and give them something to really think about. You want the poor to starve in the gutter? Then be prepared for the consequences. Deprivation is the breeding ground of riots and such. These cretins are fast tracking anti social behaviour that will make august look like a damp Monday morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)