The Small Benefits Row

It was not big. In fact having watched the on demand version (I don't have Channel 5 on my telly, by choice) I think it has been subsequently edited. It was awful; a poorly run affair with nothing to offer beyond deliberate provocation on the part of Edwina Wannabe (aka Katie Hopkins) and Edwina Currie.

Even the intro spiel is nothing more than polarising language: is it great or is it terrible? Are they all deserving or are they all undeserving. Particularly "are they dragging the country down"? Well that can't be true because how else do you explain the success of people like Currie or even Hopkins (she would say she was successful, her business record says otherwise). 

That's the psychopathy of the benefit haters; they are all the exception. They will say "well if everyone grafted like me they'd all be successful", but capitalism doesn't want that, nor could it sustain it. Success = shagged a married man while both in government, bragged about it and gained some notoriety enough to sell lurid sub-erotica off the back thereof while maintaining a career as an after dinner talking head of sorts - 'after hate' mints, or in her case 'minge'.

If there's anything guaranteed to turn me off while reading erotica it's that creature.

Oh fuck, sat next to 'White' Dee is Fraser Nelson. FFS this guy is haunting my radio and tv! I wonder if i could get a restraining order. Seriously, ever where I turn, televisually speaking, he is there. He is like a public opinion poltergeist, throwing ignorance instead of plates.

The editing is disgraceful; clips of generally 'pro-benefit' people (if i may put it that way) like Owen Jones or Sonia Poulton cut in such a way that makes even them sound anti. So you'll have someone in the context of a broader point in response to the statistics regarding benefit fraud cut so that they say 'there are people scrounging', and leaving out the 'but they are less than 1% of the whole'. Already this show sets out its stall, and the wares are vile.

And the first words out of Grating Hopkin's wordhole, spoken with real venom, are "I really don't care", in respect of claimants. She is actually genuinely (a first for her) very irate! This really is the show's downfall; the audience knows she's a joke and her rage only serves to make her a laughing stock. At last the spell is broken and we can see behind the green skin of the wicked witch. She's not scary; she's a desperate individual who wants so badly to be part of the white skinned elite, but knows she will never be because no one will ever take her seriously. If they ever did.

And with that, discussion over. Is there any point me continuing watching this pissy riot (which, on the 5od website, i thought I'd never have cause to use, seems bizarrely cut)?

This must be what it's like when the Jeremy Kyle shows comes to town, setting up cameras in a pub car park in hopes of a surly brawl between aggrieved council tenants, wound up by the crew I shouldn't wonder. Hopkins is in a right old strop, right from the get go. I wonder if that's because she's starting to sense just how reviled she is and has felt provoked into coming out guns blazing. She's not winning anyone over and done nothing but throw a really cheap shot at Annabel Giles after she asked Hopkins not to jab her bony claw into her face ("I'll point where I like"!).

Now they've dragged out some kind of weird cab fare meter that is going to keep running, showing increasingly high numbers supposedly representing the cost, real time, of benefits during the show's airtime. What the hell? This is the same logic that 'Dr' Gillian McKeith used to use when she presented a year's worth of transfats to one of her TV patients in the form of a life sized Mars Bar and kebab man-construct. It's just as ridiculous.

This has not even been on fifteen minutes and it's already descended into farce.

Goodness me, she really is angry! But all she's doing is (of course) hogging the debate and presuming. "We have had enough", we, the hardworking taxpayers, blah blah blah. The sad part is that when someone tries to respond to her on her level (which may or may not be advisable) they aretold to get to the point. What this does is give her free reign to continue with her bullshit and it's never challenged. Again you can show her facts, and the programme has actually put numbers into the debate that clearly refute, quite correctly her conclusions (they aren't hers of course, she's just a mouthpiece), but you can't make the horse drink them.

Sadly, like this programme, this long winded post is filled with...Katie fucking Hopkins and that's the way she likes it. But boy is she steaming! Hilarious!

Now it's the turn of Professor Peter Stringfellow who's years long research into social deprivation and the relationship between capitalism and benefits is well known.

What's that? Oh it's the other Stringfellow; the creepy strip club flesh peddler who looks like Bucks Fizz's dad.

Oh dear.

I think even the people participating from all sides know this show is a joke.

And Hayley Taylor is in the audience telling her to shut up!

Words fail me.

Flooded With Ignorance

First things first, David Cameron says money will be no object in the battle against the elements. Clearly money is no object when buying votes little over a year from a crucial general election. Some businesses are underwater; a florist on the radio was already writing off her business having been hit at the most inconvenient time of the year. But isn't that too bad? Capitalism is blue in tooth and claw; if your business goes under - literally - why should the rest of us bail you out? That's the worldview espoused by the people in power. That's their message to everyone else: if you fall on hard times then, by our deeds if not our honey coated words, then it's your own failings that you can't provide for yourself. Michael Gove dismisses foodbanks by saying it's the individuals that can't budget properly who use them, for example. But when it comes to business, money is no object even if it comes from those that despise the concept of a nanny state. 

We shall see, but isn't that what constitutes socialism? This constant veneration of business is ridiculous. When things go wrong they expect to be helped, the rest of the time the CBI is more than happy to make excuses for tax avoiding and piss poor wages. Surely you cannot have it both ways? Either you want a world where you stand or fall on your own, or it's socialism. They have rigged the deck so they have the best of both worlds - in other words, they get to profit exorbitantly at our expense, paying as little as possible, avoiding their financial responsibilities as much as possible, while getting a hand out when times are tough.

Why then is that not something to be extended on an individual level. Didn't Thatcher famously say there is no such thing as society only individuals? Don't you people all worship the wicked witch?

On to the main topic: recently there have been two televised spectacles, both masquerading as debates, confronting benefits and the supposed benefits culture (which of course is different and murkier than the Westminster culture, or the Etonian culture - of course). Channel 5 produced a laughable cardboard shoutfest fronted by the increasingly tabloid Matthew 'Wrighty' Wright, called the Benefit Row - I will discuss that separately and in more depth than last night's Benefits Britain, which capped off the infamous Benefit Street series whose 'stars' featured in the 'debate'. I'm quickly running out of quote marks, there's that much sarcasm necessary.

The latter was hosted by Richard Bacon who, in my opinion, has the most frustrating presenting style of anyone that drawls less than the interminable Robert 'um ah er' Preston. In short it was another shoutfest, though notable for not being a vehicle for the repugnant and irrelevant Katie Hopkins. It attempted more substance, by inviting on Chris Bryant and Mike Penning, but again issues were not discussed and the depth necessary to really expose just what is currently happening was not, nor was it ever going to be, present. Penning is the Disability Minister and yet, despite mentioning DLA (in the context of inheriting a, yawn, massive number of DLA claimants), was never called to account for the decision to cut DLA and replace it with the unncessary and unfair PIP system, which calls people for further tests at further public expense (despite austerity and recession).

What really is there to say. My write up of the first of these programmes is more a blow-by-blow account, but really it's the same old same old. Instead of actual points facts and evidence or even solutions we get promises of 'passionate' debate where everyone's views are welcome. No, they are not. I don't want to hear from Joe Public per se; I want to hear expert testimony and facts. As an example one gentleman said that in Africa people don't get benefits (they do get slavery, famine, warlords, fundamentalism, tribal warfare, corruption, poverty, rape and mutilation - but not benefits), and that everyone receiving benefits should have theirs cut. No explanation of how this would work or what it would achieve, though it's fairly obvious it would be a shortcut to chaos and crime going through the roof. This is what is regarded as a passionate discussion where everyone can have their say - as if that's a good thing. 

I'm all for free speech, and I'm all for people being able to express themselves, but that doesn't factor in the poisonous influence of the mainstream media, or the framing of the benefit narrative. It also doesn't account for the ignorance of those contributing who, like the person I just mentioned, is then given equal standing to someone that's campaigned on the issue for years and knows his facts. Owen Jones, for instance, proffered two solutions: a house building programme and an industrial response to the changing environment. In response Penning was heard muttering 'pie in the sky', but this wasn't picked up on by anyone. It was barely caught by the producer.

Sitting next to Owen was professional loudmouth and somewhat damaged goods John Bird (I don't trust the Big Issue, the homeless have to buy their stock to sell, if they don't they are fucked), Mehdi Hassan who tried to contribute facts but, being a Muslim, clearly can't be trusted - sigh - and next to him was the toxic Alison Pearson. She buggered off half way through after Owen Jones called her to task over her vile comments conflating claimants with the Philpott affair. I make this point because it affords people like her the same degree of credibility, in the eyes of the viewer (they are all in the front row), as Owen or even John, who despite being far too temperamental and loud, does occasionally blunder ideologically in the right direction, or Mehdi. Also in the front row, for some reason, was Douglas Murray. Need I say more.

Sadly the 'debate' got off to a bad start by focusing on 'white' Dee (could they not differentiate between the two Dee's by virtue of their surnames rather than their colour, or am I missing something) and her struggle with depression. Again it's putting someone under the spotlight by virtue of calling their claim into question. One might think it right, objectively, to want to get to the truth of this; people can lie and it would be ignorant to assume otherwise. But ours is not an objective world; it's one governed by powerful interests who wilfully propagate criticism of and negativity toward such people - even though that exacerbates such problems, creating a deeply vicious cycle. So we have to question Dee - is she really as depressed as she claims? Look she's articulate, she's smiling and joking - she's on TV in a group of people! Bloody hell...she must be scrounging?

Dismally Alison Pearson, a right wing hack, resorts to the cheap tactic of "she didn't look ill to me", referencing - incorrectly - the effect that the government's application, via ATOS, of the Work Capability Assessment, has had on the apparent number of sick claimants, as evidence that people are playing the system. Of course she, like the rest of the dogs, doesn't have the courage of her conviction (evident by her doing an IDS later on and slinking out) to make the accusation. Of course not; she'd be liable if she did as I assume Dee has a genuine claim - and why would I assume otherwise? Even if she secretly is some criminal mastermind behind the camera, who cares? 

This about sums it all up: the constant reinforcement, if only by reiteration, of existing unfair tropes. Consequently the debate stumbles and never catches up to where it needs to be. Everything is held back by the simple tactic of regurgitating bullshit. As a result Alison gets to speak way more than she should - she isn't a claimant and her knowledge of this is based on watching...Benefits Street.

I say no platform. Don't bother with these people anymore; tell Richard Bacon to fuck off and the rest of this coked up media shit haze. They are only interested in themselves, their set and the ratings their venal ant hill kicking exercsies create. These people have no worth and I am not interested.

Echo Chamber

Summer's almost here!

Which means Spring is almost here!

Oh well. It's February and despite the hurricanes and relentless monsoons that can only rationally be explained away by climate change I like the think that we're almost through Winter, even though by and large it's not been as cold as I'd feared (just monstrously wet). There's a point, when the day is at its shortest, where the trees on the far side of the horizon, as I look outside, obscure the sun as it sets so early. The sun has returned past that point and is heading for a a small bank of very tall trees about half way to the mid point (which would be the equinox). It usually hits that point mid February and is a sure sign that the days are gaining strength. 

It's things like that, bizarre as they may seem, that keep me going. It's how I view the world. But that isn't what I'm going to be talking about. I've been somewhat lax in my musings recently. There was the recent Benefit Street debacle (or has it somehow turned against the propaganda pimps?), but I resolved not to watch it. I knew that it would be poverty porn (apparently Channel 5 has been sniffing around Wales to film their own slice of bullshit). What is there to say about this that hasn't been said many, many, times before. The unemployed, the poor, the sick and the vulnerable, they are just zoo exhibits now. There for the benefit of our betters to moralise over and gawk at. 'How do these people live?' they say? It must be the fault of a sinking of moral character fed by 'welfarism': dependency and indolence. The devil makes work for idle hands (just not rich idle hands it seems).

Julia Hartley Brewer (she writes for the Express, what else do you need to know?) commented on Question Time that, if she were in 'their' shoes, she'd get up at double-figures a.m. and drink beer from tins. What a grotesque assumption. That's what the unemployed do - and it's reasonable that they do because their lives must be so crap. Of course some lives are - because benefits are so pitifully low (as the Europe recently told IDS). Instead of helping them, we sneer at them and turn James Turner street into a sideshow, a circus for white van driving gorillas to visit photograph and leave their indignation on the walls like painted graffiti. Who are the real parasites (the Mirror recently alleged that some of the most squalid housing imaginable, on 'Benefit' Street belongs to a Tory who charges over the odds for places so damp ridden and cold the kids go to bed dressed! 

We can't expect better from the media at the moment. The BBC has lost the plot entirely. In fact the discussion on the Jeremy Vine show this afternoon prompted me to post. The topic was workplace nepotism based on the reporting that Michael Gove had sacked a Labour person from a high ranking education position and that this was a partisan decision. I have no idea if that's true or not, though I certainly wouldn't be surprised given that Gove is selling off our schools to his chums. However when the BBC invites on Fraser Nelson to discuss this I have to say excuse me? The BBC turns to, for about the tenth time this month, right wing Spectator journalist and Tory bullshit merchant, Fraser Nelson in a discussion about nepotism. This is surely irony! He and the few other regular right wing blowhards are never out of these discussions.

Sadly this is what the BBC has become; an echo chamber for the most regressive small minded right leaning thinking going. Watching Question Time, for example (or it's radio equivalent, a copy and paste job to the point it's hosted by the other Dimbleby), and what do you see: a Tory that will bemoan Labour's term in office, A Labour shrinking violet without an opposition bone in their body, a right/centre right journalist/pundit, one of the schizoid Yellow Tories from Clegg's Club, and, if you're lucky (usually no more than once every couple of months) a token lefty who, if you're really lucky, has the wit and spark to rise above the mire. Unfortunately the prevailing paradigm is so stifling that no one takes them seriously. They are light relief at best - oh look it's that guy that used to play Baldrick!

The debate chokes on its own fumes; it's a vicious self defeating cycle of lamenting borrowing and dreading spending, of cuts that lead to more cuts and more austerity. We all know that austerity has nothing to do with managing a perceived debt; if it was they would act to cut it not fob us off with excuses for tax avoidance while hammering the poor and rewarding the rich. Yet the debate revolves around quaint and fallacious nonsense about family credit cards because that's the frame: the 'hardworking taxpaying family'. This poisonous notion has grown dense like a sociological black hole, sucking all reason and ingenuity into its negative depths. Everything has to be fair to this construct yet what that actually means is never discussed, particularly in relation to welfare. What does it mean? We are all taxpayers so who is being fair to me?

Meanwhile the audience comprises a lobby, no doubt earnestly and piously formed the moment the Young Conservative wing locally heard that Dimblebly and Co. were coming to town, of students and local business types. These are people, bedecked in their blazers and ties representing their part of the old school network, who think the world revolves around them; they are business people - gods in our society. We must abase ourselves in front of them while they reject anything that isn't capitalism even though they  must plainly see that capitalism has failed. Aside from the politics students wearing ties for the first time eager to try out their theories and demonstrate their political naivete you might get a few token lefties, but they fare no better than the person on the panel. They might get some applause, but they won't be taken seriously.

Round and round it goes - and I haven't even mentioned the staggering frequency by which Ukip appears; a party that bemoans the BBC as representing the 'liberal elite', despite UKiP having no MP's. It's a joke; when was the last time a member of TUSC, the SWP, or evne the Communist Party appeared? They wouldn't stand a chance. The closest we get is Caroline Lucas, from the greens. At least she got elected.

I don't see how this will ever change. Ultimately we will spiral to the bottom until the cracks start to appear. But things cannot go on as they are. Something, somewhere, will give. The question is what and when, and will we count the cost?

My MP and the Foodbank Debacle

Just before Christmas Parliament disgraced itself in a new low. It was supposed to be a serious discussion; the issue of foodbank use was the subject. Instead it proved to be a bear pit of braying, sneering and self aggrandising grandstanding. At the top of this pyre sat the appalling Employment Minister, Esther McVey, whose perfoermance, as an understudy of darkness, seemed to evoke an almost childlike misconception of theatrics trading propaganda and lies for honesty and hollow flamboyance for substance. It was as if she was auditioning; indeed her master, the Dark Lord of the Smith, was present - briefly. We've all seen the image of him skulking off to the bemusement of even the Speaker. Perhaps he needed to empty his internal colostomy bag of hate. No human can bear that much bile for long I would think.

Afterwards I sent an email to John Penrose, a not particularly well known tourism minister who looks a bit like a straggle Alexander Armstrong (not really relevant, but the likeness always gets me). More importantly, he's a Tory. I didn't think I'd receive a reply, but to his credit I got one yesterday.

He claims he wasn't one of those laughing during the foodbank debate. I have no real problem giving him the benefit of the doubt; enough of his colleagues were. He says that Parliament gets like that sometimes, particular during PMQ's. Unfortunately he uses a link to Guido Fawkes' website (which i hesitate to link to, but here it is) wherein the odious Fawkes attempts to smear Labour by providing blurry images of three Labour politicians talking with colleagues sat next to them and appearing to laugh or smile. Not quite the same thing and it reeks of desperation. It is perhaps most telling that the first comment on his article (if you can call it that) implies that all female Labour politicians are good for is sexual gratification - and they aren't even generous enough with that. Says it all really.

I find it curious that he's included a link in a letter, it just looks odd on the page (printed out including highlighted hyperlink text, straight outta the word processor). I wonder if Tory HQ have ordered that link be used in reply to anyone enquiring about this. I think that was the whole point; Fawkes is close to the Tories and writing crap like this is perfect for them. I bet mine isn't the only letter, on this subject, to include this link, "look we weren't the only ones laughing". Even if that were true, it's not a particularly glowing defence.

He comments that the picture provided by the Trussell Trust and others paints a complex picture mentioning benefits errors and delays (and saying Universal Credit would help with this - can I please LOL?), and the fact that 'the current Government has removed all restrictions on advertising for them (the previous Government banned this, probably because they were more worried about embarrassment than hunger, but this has now been reversed)'. He also mentions the role rising food prices have played.

'The result is that there's little or nor correlation between increasing use of food banks and poverty (huh?); in fact use of food banks increased ten times during the previous Labour administration, including when the economy was booming.'

I don't know if that's true and I don't support Labour. This is a man that has been to the local foodbank and is trying to balance what he must be seeing with the line his party toes and its ideology.

He then makes the point about UC making people better off I mentioned earlier.

His final point is to resort to the 'welfare dependency' trope, which I both deny and abhor. Everyone is dependent in this system. Unless you're one of the lucky rich you need an income. I'm sure the average Tory would start wailing if theirs was taken or cut (they pressed for a higher pay rise than the 11% on the table). He talks of the underlying causes of want which sounds like victim blaming: the poor want too much or the wrong things. It's their fault they are in poverty or are hungry: they spend their money on booze scratchcards texting and playstations. He claims 1.2 million jobs have been created since May 2010 and there are fewer than a quarter million households in which no one has ever worked. We all know the quality of these jobs (assuming that figure is true - which doesn't address whether they still exist) and the quality of the pay offered these days. It also alludes to the bizarre statement (hilariously reinforced by that astounding machine of ignorance known as Nadine Dorries) that there are 'record' numbers of people working - there are record numbers of people ffs!

None of which gets to the heart of the crisis caused by austerity, Tory ideology and the hypocrisy of the financial class that runs the western world and, in Britain, goes into bed with the landed gentry we still haven't gotten rid of. Politics is now incestuous; it's locked into a cycle of singular petty agendas and scapegoating. The current administration blames the previous and so on, even though both are largely exactly the same and both are driven by a need to please the media to be seen to please the people. Tangentially this is what makes UKIP more dangerous. Their current popularity (they are perpetually on the air, invited to an equal seat in all discussions - a privilege only they enjoy) forms a toxic and beguiling fragrance to the ignorant and confused when combined with the fact, having had no real political responsibility, they are free from the aforementioned vicious cycle. This pre-election phase is already starting to stink.

I've Done It!

The letter came through on Friday. I don't think I've ever shaken so much opening a letter. Apropos of nothing the envelope was not brown. 

I am in the Work Related Activity Group with a recommendation that I not be tested for six months.

I wanted to be in the WRAG so hopefully this won't be a case of 'be careful what you wish for' as I am due a phone call from my new adviser at the Salvation Army (all change without my consent of course) on the 8th. Regardless, this is the only honest outcome: I have tried to be fair and open about my situation. I am averse to bullshit - and why should I have to lie? 

I don't know what the future holds, this system and this government is doing it's damnedest to destroy lives and wreak havoc; IDS has said he wants rid of the WRAG as well, for example. But for now there is some security and some hope that, with the independence of these tribunals, some justice might come for people.

Unfortunately as of last October that process was made tougher by forcing people to undergo a period of mandatory reconsideration, without ESA, before reaching this stage. Given that the tribunal, a female judge and a male doctor (both of whom had a friendly demeanour, despite the formality of the setting), was explicit in pointing out their independence from the DWP it is not hard to see why they stick in IDS' craw.

Nonetheless this whole process has been fraught and worrying. All of this tension and stress, which helps no one, could be avoided so easily. All we need is the political will to see and adopt a better system, rather than this dreadful mess. By listening to independent experts (called doctors) and to the patient/claimant themselves people could get the help they need to move forward (hopefully that will happen). This will give them the security and confidence without which they will only struggle and possibly fail. 

This system can't go on as it is. 

Thanks to everyone for all the support. Happy new year!

Tribunal and Decision Pending

On Monday I attended a magistrates court, passed through a metal detector (for the first time), and had an ESA tribunal hearing. I am waiting for them to write me with the outcome. I guess it is the judge’s prerogative to deliberate and not make a decision there and then.

The tribunal is formal and yet informal – a judge and a doctor, not connected to the DWP (they were keen to make that clear), did their best to put me at ease, while seeking to hear the case professionally. At least I hope so; I have no idea what their personal feelings might be. Consequently it was impossible to gauge whether or not I might get a favourable outcome from their demeanour or conduct.

For the past three weeks, since receiving a date, I have been extremely on edge. Over the last week and particularly this past weekend that edge became increasingly sharp. Prior to receiving the date, and since the appeal was submitted (with the help of the CAB which I hope proves effective) in August, I have been dreading the post for that brown envelope from the tribunal service. Every day I’d hear the clunk of the letterbox and rush to see, as if dreading some reverse Santa Claus, what lay on the doormat.

This is what ESA is like. There is no sanity in this system because of the prevailing assumption that claimants are swinging the lead and so must be scrutinised endlessly. That the tribunal service has to get involved strikes me as fundamentally facile: can the DWP not allow patients and doctors to come to an agreement about the patient’s future? Isn’t that exactly the sales pitch made by this government to sell the PCT reforms noone voted for? Isn’t this the nanny state the Tories love to crow about?

So I presume a decision was made that same day, after I left. I presume it has been posted out to me (they said a few days, holidays notwithstanding). What that decision will be I do not know, but I certainly don’t want to have to sign on again.

A Universal Christmas Jobmatch

It’s Christmas Morning, 9am, what better time than this to check what’s on Universal Jobmatch.

Yes, I suppose this is a bit sad, but Christmas doesn’t mean much to me so I won’t be doing anything different today other than eat a roast dinner (something I do too little off all year round). I thought it might be amusing to run a wee experiment into the veracity of this god-awful site on the most unlikely day to apply for jobs. I shall log on early and check back during the day to see how much stuff gets uploaded (or appears to) and what the quality of these jobs seems to be. I read someone got sanctioned for not applying for jobs on Christmas so I thought, what better day to test the site.

Unfortunately we’re off to a rather depressing start as there seem to be 12 pages of jobs within 10 miles of me (if you set it any further it will be unmanageable) and dated (i.e. uploaded) today. By way of comparison yesterday was 3 pages at this time and the average seems to be about 5.

From the first page alone, most of the jobs come from ‘Company Confidential’ while the rest are ‘CV Library (Jobs Warehouse Only)’. Both of these I suspect are automated mail spam nonsense, though I have no idea for sure. I don’t know who owns or runs (or automates) these sources at all, that’s the problem – you are never given any information at all. Not even an employer name.

It’s only on page 4 that I find a different source: ‘Thistle rec’ (I think it’s meant to be a recruitment agency). That’s a name I don’t recognise. There are two jobs listed one is for a Deputy Manager. The advert is another appalling cut and paste job, evident by the faulty layout (no space after the full stops, which doesn’t make reading it easy). I Google a portion of the text and the job is actually in Scotland. That’s a lot more than 10 miles away. This is nothing new for Universal Jobmatch; good to see the site isn’t taking a break from being crap.

Another two vacancies from ‘CIT’ (I’ve no idea) are listed, including one for a ‘customer collections advisor – housing’ which is local, but closed on the 19^th. Why is it being listed today then, of all days? The advert links to another recruitment agency site ‘ukstaffsearch’, but if that’s the quality of their adverts what’s the point, and who are ‘CIT’?

One of the most annoying features of UJM is in how it continually seems to shuffle the adverts. When I click to load the next page of vacancies instead of actually doing that, a simple enough task, it seems to instead shuffle what’s already been seen and mix it with what you haven’t seen, like a broken ipod. Now I’m getting adverts on the page that I’ve already seen – that I’ve just looked at! How on earth is someone meant to navigate this nonsense? Given how generic most of these ads (e.g. ‘customer service operator’) are you have to assume they are different vacancies and so you waste your time clicking to find out it isn’t.

At this point a thirteenth page has been added to the total page count. It’s not even half past nine. I need breakfast. I am aware this may screw up this experiment as when I return to the site later I fully expect another bazillion pages to have been added and the whole thing to be shuffled the next time I click. It is two steps back for every step forward.

I return, having broken my fast and had a walk in the cold (at least it’s not raining). Now there are a total of 15 pages. Again it’s mostly ‘Company Confidential’. I’ve no idea why they would be confidential given that if you work for them surely you would have to know who’s paying your wages. Why does the DWP allow these employers (or more likely the agents brokering these supposed vacancies) to hide?

Most of the jobs do seem to be actually quite skilled or specific, for example there is an advert for a locum GP (the link is yet another agency website called ‘jobsball’ – maybe that’s an agency specifically for trained doctors). Again the UJM blurb is another cut and paste job. That makes me suspect it wasn’t submitted by the employer or even Jobsball. This means there must be people in the DWP trawling these sites and sticking stuff on – perhaps Santa Duncan Smith has a bunch of workfare elves slaving away over Christmas.

There are actually quite a few GP/locum jobs. Other adverts are for engineers and managers and nurses (there are lots of nursing homes round here). Surfing the site is becoming increasingly difficult due to the ‘shuffle’ problem above; I’ve now seen the ‘CIT’ jobs for a third time in as many pages. I’m about halfway through at this point. I’m already tired. Get a life.

About 8 pages in and there’s another source, something called ‘Adzuna’. But click the link and all Adzuna seems to do is redirect to another source, the agency hosting the link. However as we have seen before on UJM this source might not even be the first or original host for the link. It really is a hall of mirrors.

Another break while I explain all the vegetables I hate (HATE!) to my mother. I don’t like sprouts, or parsnips. Sprouts are evil little things and parsnips have fooled me into thinking they were yummy roast potatoes once too often. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice…you can’t get fooled again (thanks George).”

Needless to say a lot of these jobs are a mixture of vague ‘customer service’ positions (anything from call centre, sales, to retail, to just about anything), ‘trainee’ positions that are usually apprenticeships and low paid, or the eponymous catalogue distribution. It seems to be either badly advertised, poorly explained cut and paste jobs, and the high end stuff (such as the aforementioned locum position). There is no middle ground; no regular vacancies advertised sensibly. You must buy into the spiel (if you can read the ad); submit your personal details to websites you would never otherwise trust. Such as this, for example. It hardly looks like something reputable and I’ve seen worse. That position is also aimed at people aged 16-19; perhaps obvious when you think about it but since the UJM ad doesn’t mention this it’s possible anyone could be compelled to apply which would be stupid.

I have no idea who ‘company confidential’ are, or who hides behind that title or why they are allowed to. I don’t know what CV Library (Jobs Warehouse) means. Googling helps not one bit; there are so many recruitment websites, agencies and online pages, likely encompassing a wide range of quality and reliability, that it becomes an endless fractal. You click one link it takes you to another, and another and another. You search the web to find a source and it’s the same.

According to an FOI request ‘company confidential’ is to protect vulnerable groups. It allows them to advertise without giving details out, an example being someone looking to recruit home help without giving out who they are. I can understand that, but does that really apply to most of what is listed as ‘company confidential’? Surely it would be obvious from the nature of the vacancy or even the title. As such claimants cannot exempt themselves on the basis they don’t know to whom they are sending their details. For example, one advert says “Dream Medical are seeking a Consultant in Clinical Oncology for a client of ours in Bristol.”

That came from a Jobsball link as well. Thus, Jobsball are acting on behalf of ‘Dream Medical’ acting on behalf of a client unnamed. But that client is most likely to be a hospital of some kind, why the secrecy? I can’t imagine a vulnerable individual will be able to hire (or afford to hire) a cancer consultant!

I have a feeling I could be at this all day and I’m done. It’s Christmas Day, though obviously not somewhere in the DWP. It’s two o'clock, I’m hungry (cook woman, cook!), and I’ve looked at 15 pages of adverts all supposedly posted or uploaded on December 25^th 2013. Make of that what you will, happy Christmas!