Work TV

Iain Duncan Smith has said his officials who used fictional claimants to show the impact of benefit sanctions could face disciplinary action.

This is predictable of IDS as he tries to force others to take the blame. The Secretary of State is the Head of the DWP and he must carry responsibility.

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION HERE: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/en-gb/takeaction/386/241/736/

According to the BBC

The work and pensions secretary said the made-up stories on the DWP website were meant to help people understand the system and were based on "real life cases".

But Mr Duncan Smith stressed that he had not seen them before publication.

He told BBC News that the officials "should never have done that".

The DWP faced widespread criticism last week when it emerged that two sickness benefit claimants, supposedly called Zac and Sarah and who featured on the department's website, were not real people.

With all the calls for Duncan Smith to resign, we came across this nugget of information.

According to Hurriyet Daily, up to three-quarters of suicide attacks are now carried out by women because they face less security scrutiny and have many options for carrying explosives in ways that are virtually impossible to detect. These ways range from low-tech efforts of pretending to be pregnant to having the chemical agents implanted in their breasts in place of regular silicone implants.

With the advancements in plastic surgery and medical technology, the female body offers terrorist organizations a safe haven to conceal explosives and chemical agents in the most unusual of places - women’s breasts and buttocks. While research is yet to demonstrate if this actually is the case, according to Joseph Farah, inserting the explosives in women’s breasts makes the threat grow in size, first, because if injected with another liquid, explosives in implants can be extremely destructive, and second, because explosives hidden in breast implants makes them virtually impossible to detect.

It sounds like Ian Duncan Smith better watch out! 

Debbie Abrahams MP has called for Ian Duncan Smith, Secretary of State to resign. This is pretty powerful stuff. You would not say such things about an individual Member of Parliament, never mind a government minister, unless relations were at breaking point. 

It is an implied duty of any employee to act honestly. How can the prime minister continue to support someone when accusations like this have been proven in public. If Ian Duncan Smith will not go then, David Cameron ought to go. 

Change.org have this petition underway, you may wish to sign it: https://www.change.org/p/hm-courts-and-tribunal-service-publish-stats-showing-how-many-people-have-died-after-their-benefits-stopped 

This is what Debbie has to say in full

As a member of the work and pensions select committee, I have called for Iain Duncan Smith to resign following revelations that his department created a leaflet about sanctions containing made-up quotes attributed to non-existent benefit claimants.I instigated an inquiry into the use of sanctions by the work and pensions committee, which reported in March this year and I believe after being caught out so publicly it must be impossible for Iain Duncan Smith to continue as work and pensions secretary and he should do the honourable thing and resign.

This is yet another example of not only his incompetence, but what can only be described as very shady and unscrupulous behaviour not befitting a Member of Parliament let alone a Secretary of State leading a Government Department.Once again Duncan Smith is caught trying to paint a particular picture of social security claimants. He is a disgrace and should do the honourable thing and resign.

When his own department have to resort to this sort of tactic, in a desperate attempt to make it appear as though the system is working, no-one can be left believing that his draconian social security sanctions regime is fit for purpose.Only Mr Duncan Smith seems to believe that unfair and inappropriate use of sanctions on vulnerable social security claimants is acceptable. And now he’s shown that he thinks it’s acceptable for his department to produce literature that is fabricated in a desperate attempt to make people believe his sanctions regime is working fairly.

It beggars belief that David Cameron can, in the light of this embarrassing debacle, continue to back Mr Duncan Smith as a credible work and pensions secretary when he has presided over such a catalogue of errors.

In last few weeks alone the independent Social Security Advisory Committee have produced a report which says that the Government’s sanctions regime should be given ‘an urgent and robust review’.And following the Government’s appeal against the Information Commissioner’s ruling compelling the Government to publish figures on the number of people on Incapacity Benefit and Employment and Support Allowance who have died between November 2011 and May 2014, including those found fit for work, a Tribunal has now set for November 10th to hear why Iain Duncan Smith has refused to publish these data.

I will never forget the fact that not only did Iain Duncan Smith defy the Information Commissioner’s ruling to provide these data on deaths of people on social security, but that he stated to me, personally, in Parliament, it did not exist. But then, just two days later, the Prime Minister said to me, again in Parliament, the data would be published, only for the DWP’s appeal documents to defy him as well, stating publication was not in the public interest!

The select committee inquiry which I instigated reported in March and the mountain of evidence that was put before the select committee by religious organisations, academics and charities, not to mention those actually affected by inappropriate sanctions themselves, pointed overwhelmingly to a system that is inhumane and deliberately created to skew unemployment figures.The sad truth is that Iain Duncan Smith is doing everything he can to cover up the mess he has created. And this is a mess that is ruining innocent people’s lives and, as the evidence suggests, even killing some.

The only credible reason he’s going to such lengths to hang on to his job is because he knows he has so much to hide.

This is a rather baffling one for us. Simon Collyer the ABC founder managed to aquire two speeding tickets from a local speed camera in Colchester on getting back to driving after five years. A notorious camera at the end of a long sloping road.The appauling road conditions a mitigating factor for those peering over the dashboard looking for the next pothole while avoiding cyclists and the like. Simon booked a Driver Awareness Course to avoid points on his licence. The case cannot be discussed as Mr Collyer plans to take a civil action against the Essex Police. What has transpires it that these driving courses could be booked via the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) website.

The only problem was that the NPIA disbanded in 2013! Police Federations and Police organisations are 'Companies' registered at Companies House. If the Company did not exits, did it means that motorists were not protected under the Data Protection Act for example, when they handed of over their personal details when booking? Could a contact or booking even exist if the NIPA did not exist? 

 We are asking the Shadow Justice Minister Sadiq Khan who is bidding to become Mayor of London to look into this one for us. 

The National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) was a non-departmental public body in the United Kingdom, established to support police by providing expertise in such areas as information technology, information sharing, and recruitment.

It was announced in December 2011 that the NPIA would be gradually wound down and its functions transferred to other organisations. By December 2012, all operations had been transferred to the Home Office, the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and the newly established College of Policing.[1] SOCA was itself replaced by the National Crime Agency on 7 October 2013 as a feature of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which also formally abolished the NPIA.

So often it seems that while the public are expected abide by the letter of the law, the Courts and Tribunals in the UK seem ready to overlook glaring breeches in 'Due Process' and chronic administrative flaws. We need a system of justice that is more than a tax collection system for the 'high ups'. We need a just and fair system that represents fairly all those in society. The Police and the authorities need a higher standards of care because they are paid professionals.  

Have you been caught up in this anomoly. We will keep you posted on any developments?  

Great News that Frank Field MP is taking up our complaint about Universal Credit to Ian Duncan Smith at parliamentary Question Time.  Why are not Company Directors and Charity Directors allowed to apply for Universal Credit?

FROM MY LETTER

Many people become Company Directors to assist charities or organisations that help the community, in order to do ‘good-works’ in society. Frequently, they derive no remuneration. Corporations of course, are governed by ‘Articles of Association’.

Articles 10 Freedom of Expression and 11 Freedom of Association of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are in place to protect the rights of individuals who want to come together and form ‘associations’, in this case to run organisations such as charities, CIC’s and CIO’s, whose primary motive is not-for-profit.

I believe that the government is discriminating against people who become unemployed but whom want to retain directorships of organisations that do not employ them, where they are not paid a Living Wage – due to the DWP denying them access to Universal Credit.

Someone who needed money to live on, would be forced to resign from organisation that they are keen to support. Those organisations and the people they serve, would also suffer as a result. I believe that this ‘discrimination’ is unlawful, however I felt I would ask for the DWP’s viewpoint before taking further action, such as a test case. I have forwarded a copy of this letter to the DWP Select Committee and to the Prime Minister’s office. The BIG society idea came from the PM himself, and this anomaly seems to contradict the implied purpose of the  initiative. Namely to encourage people to participate in helping communities.

helping communities.    

From the BBC

The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted using made-up stories from fictional claimants to demonstrate the positive impact of benefit sanctions.

A DWP leaflet featured one welfare claimant, "Sarah", who said she was "really pleased" a cut to her benefits had encouraged her to improve her CV.

But after a Freedom of Information request by website Welfare Weekly, the DWP said they were not real claimants.

The stories were for "illustrative purposes only", it added.

Under the sanctions system - introduced by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith - people can lose benefits for anywhere between a few weeks and three years if they fail to meet the government's requirements for jobseekers.

Stephen Timms, Labour's acting shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "You couldn't make it up - but it seems Iain Duncan Smith can. The only way he can find backers for his sanctions regime is by inventing them."

The Government is not governed by the Advertising Standards Authority Codes of Conduct. Civil Servants have a duty in their Contracts of Employment and in their implied duty as employees to act honestly and fairly. 

The DWP appear to be losing their way. This is noway for a government department to behave. 

Priti Patel: In the HofP

'Let me say again, for the record, that we will publish the data—[Interruption]—and that, before the autumn, we will publish all the aspects of those data that we have been asked to publish.'

List of upcoming ad hoc statistical releases

The ONS have reported that UK unemployment stood at 1.85 million in the April to June period, up 25,000 from the previous quarter.

This is the second consecutive rise in unemployment, the jobless total had also risen in the three months to May.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures also indicated that earnings growth is slowing.

Earnings including bonuses rose 2.4% from a year ago, compared with 3.2% growth in the March to May period.

Excluding bonuses, pay was up 2.8% in the April to June period, unchanged from the previous figure.

Not good news for IDS whose webpages show a different picture:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions

It is all in how you spin it we guess. 

Universal Credit, it's not 'credit' and it is certainly not 'universal'. 

Our latest ‘Dear Ian' letter ought to give the UK Secretary of State some food for thought? See what you think of our arguments?

We ae keen to see people, in-work and/or out-of-work, acting as directors of organisations - on the boards of charities, associations or unions - anywhere people need to come together for the good of our society. 

High Pay Centre analysis shows hidden cost of big pay differentials within organisations

Workplaces with big pay gaps between the highest and lowest wage earners suffer more industrial disputes, more sickness and higher staff turnover than employers with more equitable pay differentials, a landmark report reveals today.

A High Pay Centre report today shows, on average:

• Bosses earning 10 times more than the lowest-paid staff in their organisation experience industrial action at least once a year. Those with lower pay differentials do not.
• Workplaces where top earners get 8 times the pay of junior staff report at least one case a year of work-related illness. Workplaces with pay differentials of 5 or less do not report any.
• Organisations with average pay ratios of 7:1 experience higher staff turnover.

The report, The High Cost of High Pay, is based on a survey of almost 2,000 workplaces and reveals the true cost of pay differentials within the workplace.

High Pay Centre director Deborah Hargreaves said: “High executive pay is not only frequently unmerited but has a huge hidden impact on the rest of the organisation and society as a whole.

“Whether it’s through staff turnover, sickness, low morale or industrial action, big pay gaps undermine employees’ loyalty to the company and their managers.

“Employers suffer lost productivity, have to pay more sick pay and legal and recruitment costs as staff left feeling the financial and emotional strain are driven even further into the ground.”

The High Cost of High Pay is described by authors as ‘an important step in challenging current thinking and practice around reward strategies in the workplace’ and tackles the basic premise of the so-called ‘Tournament Theory’. The theory claims that bigger pay gaps encourage people to work harder, was trumpeted in Boris Johnson’s claim that “inequality is … a valuable spur to economic activity” and is implicitly applied by most major UK firms.

The report  questions whether an employee is likely to have higher motivation if his or her bosses earn 80 times more than them.

It warns that any positive effects of motivation from extreme pay inequality are likely to be outweighed by impacts on staff morale and shows how, when stretched too far, pay differentials actually have a negative impact on companies.