DWP Boss wants British pensioners to pay National Insurance!

 

DWP BOSS THERESE COFFEY

THE Conservative Government's  Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, The Rt Hon Dr Therese Coffey, might look like a dyke with a cigar, but she voted against the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2013.

The DWP boss has said that food banks are the 'perfect way' to help the poor. During the MP's expenses scandal it was disclosed that she was claiming £1,000 a month for mortgage interest on her London home along with £160 a month for a cleaner and £150,000 for staff salaries and office costs.

When she recently made an unannounced visit to a Liverpool Jobcentre, Coffey was asked if she would be ending the 5-week wait for Universal Credit that is causing many people severe hardship. She said: "No, I don't think we are going to change that." Coffey also believes that pensioners should be forced to pay National Insurance.

Ms Coffey (47), was born in Billinge, Lancashire in 1971 and grew up in Liverpool. She graduated from UCL with a PhD in chemistry. A keen football fan, she supports Liverpool F.C. and likes pints of Guinness. She's also in favour of lifting the ban on smoking in public places. 

Her voting record reveals a tranche of reactionary views, likely to be offensive to homosexuals, women, pensioners, migrant workers, and non-smokers. 

Feral Councillors!

by Durruti Column

IT's deeply worrying to hear that Greater Manchester has one of the highest rates of hospital admissions with malnutrition* in England, 1.5 times higher than the national average. Learning that there were 588 hospital admissions in our area with a primary or secondary diagnosis of malnutrition in 2015/16, a rate of 21 per 100,000 people, compared to a rates of 15 per 100,000 across England.  These shocking statistics naturally drew me to the scandalous plight of many of our councillors, many of whom are forced to seek out alternative sources of nutrition to bulk out  their obviously insufficient tax payer subsidised post meeting buffets.   Persistent reports that councillors near delirious with early onset malnutrition  have resorted to scavenging from local restaurants to prevent starvation keep surfacing on social media. '

'You can hardly move at the local soup kitchen for councillors pan handling for a bowl of soup and a roll - where are they all flocking from ?, reported one regular Food Bank user who did not want to be named , adding '   It's time the government or Bob Geldof stepped in with another Live Aid!  Shocking reports of aggressive town centre begging by councillors without portfolio has led some to believe that the councillors expenses are quite obviously inadequate and need an immediate public inquiry and recalibration.  'You can see the poor souls staggering out of local public house racked with exhaustion and overwork.  One of them does a whole three hours work every other week .  The lovies are so tired that they keep falling asleep in meetings.  If it wasn't for the expenses form being passed round and waking them up at the end of the meetings some of them would be there all night.   I don't know how they manages to keep going?   ‘Some of the poor dears barley manage to get into a restaurant more than four or five times a week it's a wonder they aren't forced into spending their own money sometimes', said a town centre zero hours contract cleaner.

One shamefaced councillor who wish to remain anonymous described an ugly incident behind No.1 Riverside last week when a pack of feral councillors intimidated local beggars away from the closely located supermarket food skips.   ‘There's  just not enough dustbins and food skips in the town centre to supply demand any more.   It's a ghetto out there - it's us or the street beggars !', she added through clenched teeth. Few people realise just how difficult it is becoming for our poor local councillors to survive in a such a highly charged and  toxic competitive environment.  It's been reported that some town centre street corners have two , three , sometimes more, individuals cynically competing in trying to extort more money from the public purse.

'Your average professional parasite hardly get a look in any more because of these new arrivals.  Councillors cornered the market on conning the public out of their hard earned cash for decades and we deeply resent these newcomers stealing our pitches', complained another tearful and near destitute councillor of twenty years standing.  'Peoples priorities have all gone astray.  I've three full time jobs , remuneration from a dozen committee posts and the lucrative income from housing benefits on several dozen properties to scrape by on yet the local proles would still far rather donate to feed the hungry kids of a frozen single mum sitting in the rain who's been sanctioned for being two minutes late at the job centre than subsidise meals for us decent hard up councillors!  What's wrong with 'em !  It's a diabolical liberty!    Some of us have been using the same sob story to voters for decades without any public scrutiny and we don't see why just because the towns social fabric is collapsing around us that our personal gravy train should be jeopardised.   It'll end in communism you mark my words!'.

Distressingly reports that some of our local councillors have been forced by dire circumstances and near destitution into working for a living although highly unlikely can not be discounted altogether.   A recent public service announcement warns locals not to give cash to any hungry or dishevelled councillors who may wander into the town centre delirious with hunger.   'Don't give public handouts to councillors', said a spokesperson , ‘It will simply feed their addiction.  They can't help themselves - Universal Credit and destitution is good enough for the majority of our hard working dedicated town centre beggars.  Councillors are no different and it really is time they started contributing to our local economy rather than expecting repeated public handouts'.

If you see a councillor aggressively demanding more money from the public purse in a public area.  Do not approach them - and most certainly do not vote for them since this will only encourage their recidivist anti-social behaviour - Keep calm and remember that a new Public Space Protection Order is in force to protect innocent members of the public from serial scammers & fraudsters.

* malnutrition

NOUN: lack of proper nutrition, caused by not having enough to eat, not eating enough of the right things, or being unable to use the food that one does eat.

Up to a million children to lose free school meals in England under Government plans!

THE political party that snatched away free milk off school kids, is now planning to take the food out of their very mouths, to save money. Up to a million children could now lose their free school meals if the Tory Government gets its way. Currently, all families receiving Universal Credit can claim free school meals. But under new rules for Universal Credit that come into effect on  1 April, children in Year 3 and above, on Universal Credit in England, will now not normally be eligible if their parents earn more than £7,400 in a year. 

The Children's Society has warned that the plans will create a 'cliff-edge' where many families would be better off taking a pay cut, even though Government claims that Universal Credit, will make work pay. However, Labour have pointed out that while up to a million youngsters in England could be denied free school meals under Government proposals, Theresa May's alliance with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) - which keeps her government in power - has led to the Government protecting Northern Ireland from the free school meals cut. Under the proposed changes, the same threshold for Northern Ireland families to be eligible, is double that of England at £14,000.

Last Tuesday, MPs voted down a Labour bid stop 1.1 million children missing out on free school meals. MPs voted 312-254 against an attempt by Labour to block Government changes to Universal Credit rules. 

The controversy over ending free school meals for poor children, has led to calls for food and booze subsidies for MPs to be ended forthwith. While the average UK wage is £26,000 a year, MPs receive £74,000 per years plus subsidies. The food and booze subsidies, cost the British taxpayer more than £6million a year. 

Universal Credit - the bureaucratic nightmare!

A mind at the end of its tether - claiming Univeral Credit

By Steve (Starlord) Fisher



Iain Duncan Smith promised that Universal Credit would 'make work pay' and make the transition into and out of paid work seamless. This has not been my experience here or elsewhere. The whole system is not fit for purpose - it is a bureaucratic nightmare! Weber's 'iron cage' of bureaucracy! The unemployed now needs the skills of a Philadelphia lawyer in order to negotiate the system.

As a self-employed consultant, I've been helping a client (who turned to me in desperation), to move from paid work back onto Universal Credit. He'd been working as a manual worker for six months and his contract came to an end. However, it has proved a bit of farce despite our doing everything correctly.

The same day his employment ended we contacted the DWP and I was happily surprised that his claim was still open. This made matters easier, or so we thought. It was my understanding that a UC claim is kept open for 6 months to facilitate movement in and out of paid work and unemployment. Any longer, and UC is automatically closed necessitating the making of a fresh claim. Apparently it can be longer, anything from 6 months up to a maximum of 8 months. It all depends on exactly when work begins and ends and where it falls within a UC monthly commencement or start-up period and end period. We thought this 'good fortune' would make it easier to make a claim. That, after all, is one of the avowed claims of UC, to make the transition in and out of paid work fluid and seamless. So we thought that was that, but the reality it couldn't have been further from the truth.

He signed-on for a couple of weeks and received a letter telling him that his UC claim had ended! We phoned the UC help-line only to be told, eventually, that they had indeed cancelled his claim, in error. His claim had 10 days before expiry, and so I speculated the most likely scenario was that his claim had been terminated, automatically, because the paperwork from Ashton Jobcentre did not reach the relevant department in time, ie within 10 days. The help-line agreed this was the most likely scenario. We were told they may be able to 'rebuild his claim'. They said he could make a complaint. As it turned-out there was nothing they could do and he would now have to make a fresh claim. But any such claim commences only from the moment it is made. What about the last few weeks then? That's why it is imperative that one make a fresh claim as soon as possible because it won't be backdated.

When he signed-on he was told he was due a payment, but what did this mean now it had been cancelled? He received an award payment of zero. I already knew he would not receive a payment until mid-January despite what he thought because the first 7 days don't count and it is paid 1 month in arrears making for a 5 week wait at best. But does this fresh claim include the last few weeks of a claim that never was, even while signing-on at Ashton Jobcentre?

We resigned ourselves to making a fresh UC claim and would have to wait and see how this farce worked-out.

So, on Tuesday 21st December 2016 we tried without success to make an online UC application. That's how it's done these days. I'd already heard about the online completion time limit. We had 20-40 minutes to complete it. Exceed this and everything's lost. One must start again playing the UC version of 'snakes and ladders'. There is no option to save and return later as with other online systems.

The online form is a poor-mans version of a HMRC Tax Return. Very poorly designed, with poor 'error-handling'. It's almost as if it's been designed to fail, to put people off making an application in the first place, and even when one does try it often fails for other reasons. The software is very fragile. But how typical was our experience?

We had no trouble finishing within the time limit. However, we ran into a different but related problem. We were well prepared and had almost finished. We were just entering banking details when the bloody system crashed, telling us to try again later or continue with the current application. However, there is no way to continue. One is forced to abandon the current attempt and start again, but even that's not easy. We tried again only to be told a claim was already in process, that we would have wait 20 minutes for the current application to expire or continue with it, but as said this was not possible. So we had to twiddle our thumbs for 20 minutes and begin again just like poor old Michael Finnegan. This time we were moving at speed knowing exactly what to do only to find it failed within minutes returning us to the beginning yet again. Yet another 20 minutes of thumb twiddling. I tried again but we were getting nowhere fast. I suggested we try again tomorrow when we could phone the UC help-line if this happened again.

So on Wednesday 22nd December 2016 we tried again. Immediately we started we were told a claim was already in process and we would have to wait 20 minutes before we could continue, but I'd not done anything yet. I telephoned the DWP UC help-line and was told they'd been having problems yesterday. That explained that. Now the excuse, was that they were updating the system starting this afternoon at 16:00, with only minutes to go! The DWP officer thought we may have difficulty and it would be best to leave it to another day. However, I thought lets give it one more try and finally, success! I told my client to include all of these difficulties as part of his efforts to find work. However, one cannot save a copy. One does not get a receipt number or get an email confirmation. My client is told that he can expect a phonecall within 2 days to make an appointment at the Jobcentre. Of course, he's already done all of this!

My client has now been told that he's got a Jobcentre appointment for his UC claim and can expect his first payment at the beginning of February 2017, having started his claim on 30 November 2015, over two months ago. He is now in rent arrears and has been given his first a food-bank voucher  from his landlord. He now faces a gloomy Christmas, with no money, and wonders what was the point of taking temporary paid work, when all it does screws up your benefit claim and leaves you facing hardhip.  God help us, if this is what the government calls simplyfying things.

One party state leader accused of hypocrisy over self-employment!

WE are publishing below a letter from Steve Fisher aka 'Starlord' that was sent to the Tameside Reporter & Chronicle last month but was not published.  Mr Fisher, a tenant of New Charter Housing, who own the Reporter, under the guise of 'Quest Media Ltd', in the one party state of Tameside, has been proscribed and deemed a "prolific complainant" by New Charter and banned from entering their business premises since 2007. His letter, was a response to Tameside Council leader, Kieran Quinn (pictured below).

'The Leader' accused of Hypocrisy

"I read 'The Leaders' Column', Tameside Reporter (3rd Nov 2016), with astonishment! Cllr. Kieran Quinn thinks Self-employment is 'here to stay'. Does he mean  bogus self-employment or the truly self-employed 'Sole Trader' like myself ? Should I call myself a Sole Trader to differentiate myself from the rising mass of bogus self-employed? 

Ironically, the very existence of thousands of real self-employed people, is imperilled by the roll-out of Universal Credit. Why? Because they are not subject to the National Living Wage, but that's changing for the worse. 

To qualify for Working Tax Credit (WTC), HMRC require that all work done be 'for payment or in expectation of payment', and they must work at least 16 hours p/w part-time or 3o hours p/w full-time. WTC is paid if earnings are low, zero, or if making a loss. But WTC is being merged into Universal Credit and thousands of self-employed Sole Traders will be forced onto the dole, while bogus self-employment is on the rise! 

Some organisations exploit tax loop-holes to employ people 'as if' self-employed. It's part of the tax avoidance/evasion scam. It is indeed "an excuse for companies to avoid their duties and obligations in terms of things like sick pay, holiday pay, the minimum wage and pensions." But this is precisely what Tameside Council are doing! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! 

Many of the bogus self-employed are little more than slaves without workers rights and none of the freedoms of self-employment. They have little or no control over what they do. If they don't do as the Company commands they don't get the work. Self-employment lets them dodge their employment responsibilities, and health and safety legislation. It's 'my way or the highway'! 

A client of mine was indirectly employed by Tameside Council. He worked 'as if' a council employee alongside council employees, but he has no contract with the Council. He's an agency worker. Many years ago he worked directly for Tameside Council doing the same work. 

You wouldn't believe how much paperwork he had to deal with, reading, signing, scanning and emailing, merely to secure simple paid work. It's bad enough claiming Universal Credit and trying to avoid benefit sanctions, but this scam is even more devious. 

Let me explain. As a self-employed consultant I helped him to complete all 'paperwork', did some online research, and made some phonecalls on his behalf. He couldn't have done this alone, but the tale's even more twisted. 

He was employed by 'Service Care Solutions Ltd.', Preston, who procure workers for Tameside Council via AGMA. Much cheaper than hiring workers directly. He has few employment rights and no union protection, but that's a Labour Council for ya! 

This situation was exacerbated when SCS hired a payroll company, 'Freelance Professional Services Ltd.', to pay his weekly wage into his bank account. They have an office in Viking House, Ramsey, but their HQ is on the ISLE OF MAN! The bells begin to ring! 

FPS then created a separate company to act as his direct employer, and so he became a de-facto employee of his very own company Limited by Guarantee, and working for himself. These are known as Umbrella Companies. FPS act as Tax Agent with HMRC. I say de-facto because he had to sign and agree to a 36-point 'Administrative Terms & Conditions' form, many of which are legalistic and complex and completely unreasonable. He'd already been working for a week! Don't sign, don't get paid, lose the job, and then try to re-claim Universal Credit which would be refused because he'd left his job voluntarily. Not much of a choice! Whatever happened to workers rights? 

He had to "agree to adopt a flexible working approach and opt out of the 'working time regulations'", agree to data sharing, breaching his Data Protection rights, and that FPS be appointed Company Administrator placing them in control of the very company that they set-up in his name without his permission. 

The job was advertised as £8.60 per hour, but his actual pay after deductions was £7.20 per hour. It's as if they'd calculated backwards to get this figure! He did not receive the full advertised rate because he had to pay two lots of taxes and two lots of National Insurance, one for the company and one for himself, and holiday pay manipulations. What a con!

He hadn't a clue what was happening. He just wanted to work, but had little choice in the matter. It's all seemingly legal, but very dodgy! 

There are 4 separate 'legal entities' in-between the worker and Tameside Council, which includes AGMA, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities! 

The Leader says, "that HMRC have set up an 'Employment Status and Intermediaries Scheme' that will react to complaints and investigate companies that have declared a high amount [number] of self employed workers." Very good and about time, BUT how high is high? Will this include the likes of Tameside Council? It certainly should! So where do I go to report TMBC?"

Tribunal Judge calls for Judicial Review of Council Tax Scheme!

 

A 58-year-old community campaigner against the Tory 'bedroom tax', recently won a council tax appeal at the Valuation Tribunal of England sitting in Manchester in 2014.

 

Steve Anthony Fisher, a self-employed man from Dukinfield, appealed against a decision of his local authority Tameside Council, to bill him full council tax under its council tax scheme. Under a previous scheme Mr. Fisher had received council tax benefit in full. However, when the council changed its scheme in 2013, he was shocked to find that the council now expected him to pay full council tax even though his circumstances had not changed. He was also hit with a double whammy, when the council demanded a further £12.50 charge for his Tory bedroom tax because he was deemed to have a spare bedroom. Both charges together amounted to 50% of his disposable income.

 

Mr. Fisher has lived at his two bedroom house for the last thirty years. Believing that he had suffered an injustice and had been treated harshly, he appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. After two separate hearings, the Tribunal decided to allow his appeal in part, because the 'billing authority' (Tameside Council) had incorrectly applied their own scheme in relation to Mr. Fisher. In short they did not know their arse from their elbow.  

 

In his promulgated decision, Mr. P. Johnson (Tribunal Chairman), made the following obiter:  

• This case raised potential grounds for Judicial Review of the Scheme and potential for challenge under the Articles and Protocols of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
• While Mr Fisher's primary and legitimate concern was with the principal that he should be deemed to possess more income than he actually received, he noted that the Tameside area (or at least a substantial part of it) is an area in which Universal Credit has been introduced, but does not yet apply to all persons claiming Universal Credit. He believes that The Scheme has been drafted to dovetail with the Universal Credit Scheme, copying heavily from that scheme, but has failed to ensure fair treatment to persons not in receipt of Universal Credit.
• The tribunal could not consider those matters, but recommends that Tameside MBC give urgent reconsideration to the wording of The Scheme, in light of the hardship caused to some persons claiming under the Scheme.

Given the Chairman's comments, Mr. Fisher would be keen to pursue the matter to Judical Review if legal aid was available. Alternatively, an organisation like C.A.B. or welfare rights, might want to investigate the matter further as it seems to affect many more people living in Tameside. Mr. Fisher can be contacted on starlord@starlord-enterprises.freeserve.co.uk

 

 

Protesters call on Jobcentre' workers to join campaigns against benefit sanctions!

Protesters who are campaigning against the Government's unfair sanctioning regime outside a Jobcentre in Ashton-under-Lyne, are calling on Jobcentre workers to join their protest and to support their own union's opposition to the 'draconian' sanctioning regime within Jobcentre's.

Last week,  a former Public and Commercial Services Union (P.C.S) representative, John Pearson, was confronted by an angry Jobcentre worker outside Ashton Jobcentre, who rebuked him for displaying a P.C.S placard while protesting against benefit sanctions. Although the P.C.S union have called on their members to support groups campaigning against the Tory Government's sanctioning regime, the member of staff, (who we understand to be the P.C.S union rep at Ashton Jobcentre), denied any knowledge of this.

At their last conference, P.C.S delegates voted for a motion that called on P.C.S members to:

a) Support initiatives that seek to undermine and expose the draconian sanction regime that exists in Jobcentres.

b) Encourage campaign activity with local groups around the issue of sanctions.

c) Actively support staff who are targeted with disciplinary action for using their discretion when considering sanction referrals.

d) Raise the profile of the issues around the government's war on the poor.

As we recently reported, the scale and persistence of poverty in Britain, has led to many people in work, becoming increasingly reliant on in-work state benefits as welfare is being used to top-up poverty pay. Some 40% of staff who work in Jobcentres, qualify for the state benefit 'Universal Credit'.

One of the reasons for low pay, is the inability of many British workers to demand a bigger share of national wealth because their trade unions are shackled by some of the most stringent anti-union laws in the western world. These laws, or legal hurdles, are intended to make it difficult for unions to take official industrial action to obtain better terms and conditions of employment. One consequence of this, is the 'flexible labour market' - zero hours contracts, low pay, temporary jobs and more agency work.

Apart from low-pay, Britain is also plagued by low productivity and a skills shortage. UK productivity is 14-15 percentage points lower than France and 17 percentage points below the average for the rest of the G7,  in 2013. The British economy under the Tories is being built on low wages and low productivity and is heavily reliant on its financial sector.

As we head towards another referendum as to whether the UK will continue to be a member of the EEC, we should perhaps recall a speech that was made at Upminster by the Tory grandee, Sir Keith Joseph, in June 1974. In that speech, given seventeen months after the UK joined the EU in January 1973, he said:

"Compare our position today with that of our neighbours in Germany, Sweden, Holland, France. They are no more talented than we are. Yet, compared with them, we have the longest working hours, the lowest pay, and the lowest production per head. We have the highest taxes and the lowest investment. We have the least prosperity, the most poor and the lowest pensions."

It seems, that even after forty years, some things in Britain never change. We still have low pay, low productivity, long working hours compared to many other EU countries, less holidays and poorer state pensions. The only thing that as changed, is the excuses that are given by politicians for Britain's economic decline. Back in June 1974, Sir Keith, didn't blame Britain's membership of the EU or immigration for Britain's economic failure. He told his audience, that it was all the fault of the Labour Party and socialism.

"Okey cokey pig in a pokey" - Ashton Jobcentre gets uppity over protesters placard!

The weekly protests outside Ashton-under-Lyne Jobcentre, have attracted the attention of various media organisations, but not the local press in Tameside. The only local newspaper now in business in Tameside, the Reporter and Chronicle, is owned by the housing company, New Charter Housing Trust Ltd under the guise of 'Piccolo Communications'. The housing company, which has close links to Tameside Council, also owns Tameside Radio and are involved in delivering the 'Troubled Families' agenda with the council. Under this initiative, the Conservative Government have identified 120,000 'persistently anti-social families'. However, it later emerged that this figure was actually a measure of social deprivation and not behaviour. Unemployed single-parents, have been designated 'troubled families' by Ashton Jobcentre and referred to the scheme because they were not considered to be doing enough to look for work.

On Thursday, researchers from NINELIVES.media.co.uk, called at Ashton Jobcentre and spoke to protesters. They are making a television documentary for Channel 4's 'Dispatches', about welfare and benefit reforms and want to speak to people in receipt of in-work state benefits about how reforms are affecting them. Anyone who is receiving JSA, Universal Credit or Working Tax Credits, and wishes to speak to 'Dispatches' on a 'confidential basis', should contact - Jessica Bell or Jane Drinkwater directly on 0161 832 2007 or jessica.bell@ninelivesmedia.co.uk and jane.drinkwater@ninelivesmedia.co.uk

Many people are often unaware of the extent to which state welfare is being used to subsidise poverty pay in Britain. Today, only one-in-eight people who are receiving housing benefit, are not in work. In other words, people who are in work, are often unable to pay their rent because they are not paid enough. State benefits have become the prop for the failure of capitalism to deliver decent jobs and wages. Since 1980, unemployment has averaged more than three-times the post-war rate, while the proportion of those in low-paid jobs, has doubled to over 20%. Britain is the only country in the G7 group of leading economies where inequality has increased this century. (Credit Suisse - annual global wealth report - October 2014, P.33). Yet, while many of us have got poorer, this has coincided with a boom in the number of rich and super-rich in Britain. Those people who can least afford it, have paid the price for the man-made financial crisis caused by the bankers and politicians.

Even people who work in the Jobcentre are not immune from poverty pay. According to Mark Serwotka, the General Secretary of the PCS trade union, some 40% of his members who work in the Jobcentre, do qualify for the state handout Universal Credit, because they are "fantastically low-paid." Yet these very same people who are in receipt of state benefits, are often the ones, who vilify claimants and stop their benefits in order to meet government sanction targets.

With the introduction of the Tories 'Universal Credit' (UC), things are likely to get a lot worse in terms of personal scrutiny, regulation, and control.  One aspect of Universal Credit, is what is termed 'conditionality', and this will have implications for anyone who is in work and is claiming Universal Credit, JSA, or Working Tax Credits. As with the unemployed, people in receipt of in-work benefits, will be required to attend regular Jobcentre interviews and could face sanctions (loss of benefits), if they fail to carry out directions given to them by the Jobcentre, such as being required to look for better paid work or to increase the hours that they already work.

Some Jobcentre staff in other areas of the country, have been disciplined for not sanctioning enough people on benefits and opposition to the Government's harsh sanctioning regime is growing. At the last PCS conference, it was agreed that PCS members would be encouraged to support local groups campaigning against sanctions and would support initiatives that sought to undermine and expose, the draconian sanction regime that exists in Jobcentres. However, this is unlikely to make much of an impression on staff working at Ashton Jobcentre, who have been heard boasting in the local Caledonian pub in Ashton, about the number of 'dole-ites', they have sanctioned that week.  On Thursday, one diminutive and stroppy female member of staff, came out of Ashton Jobcentre accompanied by a G4S security guard and admonished a demonstrator, for carrying a PCS placard, which she objected to. "I know who your are" she told the burly protester. With hardening attitudes like this, it seems likely that these protesters are in it for the long haul. 

G4S guard told Jobcentre activist - 'I'm going to go out there and punch them' !

Ashton-under-Lyne Jobcentre is rapidly acquiring a reputation for thuggery. In recent weeks, NV has reported on how one 19-year-old Jobseeker had her benefit stopped because she told an employer she was 23-weeks pregnant. Another Jobseeker, was told by Ashton Jobcentre, that he would have his benefit stopped if he continued to support a protest outside the Jobcentre against unfair and illegal sanctions and the abuse of power. This week an article appeared in the Morning Star, alleging that a G4S security guard working at Ashton Jobcentre, had threatened to use violence towards protesters. We are publishing the article in full.

"PROTESTERS threatened with violence by G4S security staff at a local jobcentre have vowed to continue their fight against benefit cuts and sanctions today.

Tameside Anti-Cuts will return to their weekly peaceful demonstration at Ashton-Under-Lyne Jobcentre Plus, claiming they are "not afraid."

Last week's action ended on a sour note, when a member of the public exited the centre reporting a G4S security guard had just shouted: "I'm going to go out there and punch them."

Charlotte Hughes, who helps organise the unemployed in the town, said the behaviour of the jobcentre's outsourced security "beggars belief." "I've saved three people from committing suicide this month," she told the Star, adding that jobseekers feel increasingly intimidated and alone. Ms Hughes argued that the demonstrations are peaceful and that Tameside Anti-Cuts provides help, support and advice to the unemployed.

Demonstrations started in August after her 23-week pregnant daughter was sanctioned. "She attended a workfare interview and was told by the jobcentre staff that she shouldn't have told B&Q that she was pregnant," explained Ms Hughes.

Ashton-Under-Lyne was chosen by the government as the launch centre of its universal credit flagship scheme in April 2013. Ms Hughes said that is why the jobcentre's staff are particularly strict applying what she called an "inhuman sanctioning system." Today's protest is nonetheless expected to carry on as normal.
"We are going to make the jobcentre aware that they can't threaten us," insisted Ms Hughes.

When approached by the Star, staff at the Ashton-Under-Lyne jobcentre refused to comment.

G4S also remained silent on the incident."

Risk to Homeless in Welsh Ruling?

A recent ruling in North Wales, which found that Housing Benefit should not be paid to a night shelter, has led to similar cases throughout the country. While local and national government consider their next steps, the issue must not get in the way of helping people off the streets, argues Jacqui Mccluskey, Director of Policy & Communications at Homeless Link. 

A night shelter is not a home, so went the argument behind recent judgement in Anglesey, therefore it should not be subsidised by Housing Benefit. Of course it is true that night shelters aren’t permanent homes. They don’t pretend to be, but they do offer a vital lifeline for some of the most excluded people in society - and many of them rely on income from housing benefit to provide that support. 

Now that other local authorities are following in Anglesey's footsteps, we are becoming increasingly concerned about the impact this will have on local emergency provision. 11 local councils have already withdrawn some or all payments to night shelters, or they are insisting on modifications to services. From council to council there is a wide range of interpretations of what should be paid and for what service. This has inevitably raised the question of what will be done in those areas to ensure that there is still provision both for emergency and longer term accommodation to ensure that rough sleeping does not rise. 

Whatever the answer, given the different types of emergency accommodation available – from winter shelters on church floors to year round No Second Night Out projects – the local impact could be devastating even before the challenges we expect to see under the monthly assessment structure of Universal Credit.

In our policy briefing on the issue we highlight the actions that central and local government must take if we’re to avoid an unintended rise in rough sleeping in the areas affected:

The Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) must urgently clarify the national position and communicate this to councils.  DWP also needs to communicate whether night shelters will or will not be exempt from Universal Credit reforms.  Local authorities must avoid suddenly withdrawing funding from services, especially if there is no alternative emergency accommodation in place.

Above all, what this issue highlights is the fundamental need both for secure long-term funding for effective emergency accommodation, as well as accommodation that provides people with a secure base that they can call home. 

Jacqui Mccluskey manages Homeless Link's policy, campaigning and communications functions, as well as the Project Director for Making Every Adult Matter (MEAM). 
News item from Sylvia Wilson on her HUT Newsletter.

Landlord Action say deductions ‘will not work’

LANDLORD Action has expressed concerns for both landlords and tenants over plans to deduct Universal Credit payments in order to recoup rent arrears.  The landlord-led organisation said the whole system is flawed and needs to be looked at much more closely before being rolled out. 
Paul Shamplina, Founder of Landlord Action, said:
'The new system is a big worry to landlords and tenants. At present it is at a council’s discretion to choose to make payments directly to a landlord and not via the tenant. We know that it is only the minority of tenants that do not pass on housing allowance but we have worked with many landlords that have stepped away from the sector as a result.  As more tenants struggle with the new system, fewer landlords will feel confident enough to rent to this sector, creating an even greater gap between supply and demand of social housing.  What’s more, docking a tenant’s Universal Credit when they are already in a vulnerable position is not going to solve the problem. Most tenants are not refusing to pass on payments because they want to keep them, but because they can’t manage financially. From a landlords point of view, five, 10 or even 20% of a tenants Universal Credit payment would be a minimal and lengthy process towards paying off even one month’s rent arrears.  We need to stop tenants getting into arrears in the first place, and the only way to do this is with direct payments to the landlord. Our experience tells us this is what the majority of both landlords and tenants would prefer.'

News item from Sylvia Wilson on her HUT Newsletter.

Ashton-under-Lyne: Universal Credit

YESTERDAY saw a small demonstration at mid-day outside Ashton-under-Lyne Town Hall in Tameside, called by the PCS union against a pilot scheme which was just introduced to test the consequences of the Government's proposed new Universal credit to try to simplify a range of benefits into a single benefit:  the proposal is to combine JSA, ESA, IS, Housing Benefit and tax credits.  It is estimated that 8 million households will get this universal credit (UC).  Optimistically, the Government hopes this scheme will be implemented during the four years from 2013 to 2017.

The demo yesterday was sup[ported by Alec McFadden, the TUC-JCC representative for the North West and manager of Salford Unemployed Centre, supporters of Salford Against the Cuts, and delegates from Tameside Trade Council.  John Pearson and other members of the PCS union, Alec McFadden and Barry Woodling (Salford Against the Cuts and the Northern Anarchist Network[NAN]) addressed the gathering.

There are fears that this new benefit will lead to less benefits for claimants and to administrative problems within the benefit system.  Even the Government seems nervous as witnessed by the introduction of this small and cautious pilot in Ashton which only applies to a few postcodes in the tameside area.  Later some of the demonstrators led by delegates from Tameside TUC went to leaflet outside the local Job Centre, where many of the media had congregated.  There the press officer for the Dept. of Work & Pensions [DWP]/ Job Centre told Barry Woodling that the scheme was operating well so far.  Some leafleters were distributing a flyer criticising the 'Bedroom Tax'.

Ashton-under-Lyne and Tameside is an interesting as in the 1990s it was one of the areas that was foremost in challenging the Job Seeker's Allowance.

Protest Against Universal Credit Pilot Scheme - Ashton Town Hall, Monday 29 April.

"On 29 April, the Universal Credit Pilot starts at Ashton-under-Lyne Jobcentre. PCS believes the introduction of 'conditionality' for those in work, and stricter sanctions for those out of work at this time, are cruel, ineffective, unnecessary and discriminating; the governments preferred option of online claiming discriminates against those with disabilities and those on low incomes. The government target of 80% of Universal Credit being claimed online is unrealistic. We are calling on the government to rethink Universal Credit and develop an approach based on creating jobs as opposed to puishing them for not being able to find jobs."

The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), who represent Jobcentre staff, have organised a protest to 'Defend Welfare' and are inviting people to join them on the steps of Ashton Town Hall on Monday 29 April between 12.30 - 1.30 pm. Speakers from PCS, Unite and community campaign groups.


PCS is spearheading a united campaign against welfare cuts alongside other trade unions and charities and will have a week of activities around welfare. It will start with a protest in Ashton-under-Lyne Town Hall (near the Jobcentre Pathfinder) from 12.30pm on 29 April. This Pathfinder is the first trial of Universal Credit (UC).

Throughout the campaign week our members will be able hand out a variety of leaflets to colleagues and the public highlighting the problems of UC and busting myths about welfare.

Our core campaign objectives:

Set out an alternative vision for welfare

Protect public service delivery

Defend members’ jobs from cuts and privatisation

Defend claimants’ rights and entitlements

Bust welfare myths

Coordinate a united campaign.

Join the protest to defend welfare at Ashton town hall steps, Market Place, Ashton-Under-Lyne OL6, on 29 April from 12:30–1:30pm. Please see flyer and circulate wide..

For information and to sign up to the campaign, email welfare@pcs.org.uk

Read and share our pamphlet Welfare: an alternative vision

Find out more about the campaign at pcs.org.uk/welfare