WRAG/sanctions: the definitive answer (as much as there is one)

As promised last night, the SKWAWKBOX has been looking further into conflicting reports from DWP insiders concerning the WRAG (work-related activity group) category into which the government, more or less arbitrarily, places some disability benefit claimants and the possibility of sanctions after a fixed period of two years under the Universal Credit (UC) system if claimants have not found work.

Some activists insisted that this was part of the UC system and this was initially confirmed by long-term DWP employees. Others subsequently disputed it. The only thing all were agreed on was that the rules are ill-conceived and extremely confusing.

The SKWAWKBOX contacted a PCS union official who specialises in UC for clarification and received this response:

I’ve been looking at the regulations and I can’t find anything that refers specifically to a fixed time limit in which to find employment.

The ‘disabled’ argument, as I’m sure you are aware, is notorious because ultimately the Department through the provide contractors are essentially able to define who is fit or not for work.

For example, a claimant maybe moved from ESA to UC on the back of a WCA [Work Capability Assessment]. The claimant may disagree with the decision but they are stuck.

If they are adamant they are not fit for work, they could refuse employment in an environment they believe will affect their health. This is where the sanction process comes in – a 13wk, 26wk and 156wk sanction could apply (although similar regs existed prior to UC and the 2012 Welfare Reform Act if not as harsh or severe).

In this case you’re looking at failure to apply, not accepting work or leaving on one’s own accord. Their argument is they aren’t fit, the department will still look at sanctions.

The sanction regime is clearly arbitrary, deeply unfair and dangerous – but there is no rule mandating a fixed time-limit for a claimant to find work.

However, another PCS/DWP source warned that while the rules don’t include such a limit, the way they are applied may not be as clear cut:

I can tell you that we have received complaints from WRAG claimants about having their ESA revoked after two years. And now they are treated as JSA claimants because they are ‘fit for work but not necessarily their precious occupation(s)’.

Sanctions have been applied because the claimant has not fulfilled their requirement to find work. The purpose of the WRAG was to enable people to return to work despite being disabled, but this component has now been removed as WRAG claimants are now treated as jobseekers.

Other WRAG claimants have been booted off ESA or the sickness element of UC after a period of two years because they failed their WCA – a deliberate decision to bully them back to work. They can appeal, but if unsuccessful then they are subject to jobseeker commitments – and sanctions if they fail to demonstrate that they are actively seeking work.

There are no automatic sanctions, but there does appear to be a de facto use of a 2-year period as a trigger for moves to manoeuvre or bully claimants into a position where they are subject to sanctions if they do not meet arbitrary conditions.

This may be the source of the initial confusion of the reports the SKWAWKBOX received independently from DWP/recent-DWP employees. If you are subjected to this treatment, it is not in accordance with UC rules, so challenge it. Seek help to do so if needed.

As far as there is a definitive answer, this appears to be it.

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

65 responses to “WRAG/sanctions: the definitive answer (as much as there is one)

  1. Pingback: See clarification | The SKWAWKBOX·

  2. Reblogged this on Declaration Of Opinion and commented:
    As someone who’s just been declared “fit-for-work” after a WCA (exactly 2yrs after last) now awaiting the outcome of the Mandatory Reconsideration the only thing that’s consistent in all of this is that common sense or logic plays no part. Those making decisions about people’s lives are totally unqualified and seem not to care the misery they’re causing. To get a positive outcome requires a real effort and just not giving up. Which when you’re ill with a mental / physical illness isn’t as easy as it sounds. I truly believe those that thought this all up have a really scary kind of illness. Mx

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Pingback: WRAG/sanctions: the definitive answer (as much as there is one) | Jaffer's blog·

  4. If a ESA claimant is reassessed in a UC area, If they wish to ask for MR or Appeal they move onto UC rules without choice of going back on ESA legacy benefit. Same with Change of Circumstances.. Awards can be 6mth 12mth and 18 mths with constant emphasis on moving closer to work. Sanctions come into play when claimants fail to comply

    Liked by 1 person

  5. SKWAWKBOX should apologize for causing confusion and dismay. The site’s initial article on this matter indicated that disabled people not placed in the ‘Support Group’ by the DWP’s contracted medical assessors would have two years to find work and would then face sanction. This latest piece confirms that there is no rule mandating a fixed time-limit for a claimant to find work.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The initial article on this matter was supported by no fewer than three long-standing DWP employees. This blog cannot possibly be expert in every aspect of every systen. Trusting three experienced, independent people all agreeing that the information was accurate was proper due diligence. That they were wrong shows how much confusion there is and as soon as it was apparent that there was doubt about the correctness of the information an article was published – and flagged as important – to that effect. That is genuinely not a matter for apology by us.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Skwawkbox, you have acted properly throughout.

        The rules are deliberately confusing to make it possible to leave people without benefits. I’ve been through the system as a sick and disabled claimant and was placed in the WRAG instead off the Support Group (SG) when Incapacity Benefit was scrapped. I had great difficulty getting into the SG. The Job Centre official who called on me at home definitely gave the impression I would lose benfits if I didn’t cooperate with them. They didn’t care if it was possible or not. I was frantic. It’s not surprising people kill themselves. That’s what they want.

        Keep up the good work. Your journalism is vital to expose the truth.

        Liked by 4 people

      • I vehemently disagree that this is not a matter for apology by SKWAWKBOX. You made NO EFFORT to contact the DWP officially, as per Media enquiries – Department for Work and Pensions – GOV.UK https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions/about/media-enquiries.

        To verify DWP regulations, it is best to get the information “from the horse’s mouth.” I don’t accept your excuses, and were other disability blogs critical of you as well.

        Like

      • Samuel Miller. I personally wouldn’t believe anything those people say to the media. It’s all double-speak (that’s why the system is so complicated and constantly changing). If you want to know what it’s really all about, you need to ask the people on the receiving end.

        Like

    • are you working for these monsters are you part of the problem haven’t enough evidence been shown that the jcp dwp are a law unto themselves they bend it to suit themselves cover up when needed its gone beyond a joke when a government can and will sanction peoples who later die they very devious hiding the true figure of deaths they now they actions kill jeff3

      Liked by 2 people

    • Errr, no…

      Skwawkbox has zero reason to apologise. None whatsoever.

      The ones what should be apologising (grovellingly) are IDS, ‘lord’ fraud and the rest of the clowns still at the DWP; along with the maximus, work programme parasites & jobcentre staff – who sanction folks on a whim without knowing or operating within the law.

      The waters have been so muddied, as has been made evident. Ignorance is no excuse, and they’re the ignorant. It’s a free-for-all; a ‘make of it what you will’ and there’s very little redress for the poor sods on the wrong end of a ‘sanction’, combined with zero comeback for those doling out these draconian measures.

      Liked by 3 people

  6. Pingback: WRAG/sanctions: the definitive answer (as much as there is one) | Hercules space·

  7. Being the originator of the quotes taken out of context in the original article, why at no point did Sqwawkbox contact me?

    1. This is not part of the current legislation, it is from one of the Green Papers issued by Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith. (Under the Statutory instrument he put in place in his amendments to the welfare reform act, the contents of this green paper would not be scrutinised by the Westminster). We are guessing it will be implemented either this autumn or possibly at full roll out in 2018-19.

    2. I never stated that this would affect Disabled Persons Directly (I stated this would affect Level 4 (JSA) claimants. It only affects Disabled claimants if they have been wrongfully pushed into Level 4 after a zero point score on the WCA. Or if their Job Coach decides to downgrade them from Level 2 or 3 to Level 4.

    Like

  8. I don’t think it’s any secret that I’m no fan of Skwawkbox’s “tittle tattle” style of journalism, but at least in this case he has admitted that the original article was flawed.

    What I find difficult to accept is that whilst, when the tittle tattle turns out to be true it’s fearless independent journalism, when the tittle tattle turns out to be false, the SODDI (some other dude did it) defence is put up.

    I’ve now seen three examples of this in stories in which I’ve taken an interest.

    But leaving that aside I think this whole episode does show that, contrary to some opinions, it’s quite legitimate to challenge those stories which don’t feel right, (and a little basic research backs up that feel), and later turn out not to be right.

    Like

  9. Still wrong and still causing consternation. People in the WRAG are NOT required to look for work and cannot be sanctioned for not working or not seeking work. If they are found fit for work by the unreliable and arbitrary work capability assessment, they are moved to JSA (or universal credit where introduced and made subject to all work-related requirements) but can appeal that decision – 63% of appeals succeed. There is NO two year time limit on being in the WRAG, either in law or practice. I’m happy to check future benefit stories for you as I have had to spend the last 3 days calming down some very distraught and vulnerable claimants who believed your original story. That was irresponsible sensationalist journalism and this partial retraction hasn’t helped much either.

    Like

  10. Glad you have corrected,there are no time limitations for ANY claimant, whatever their benefits,to find work.Although there are in other countries in Europe,pretty sure that in Germany you are given a lump sum,comparable to your last wage and nothing more, seems to work there.
    I have multiple (serious) health conditions and still manage to work-albeit part-time, as a reasonable adjustment, under DDA and I’m sure a good many others with health conditions and disabilities could, and should work to if they’re able to.

    Like

  11. There seems to be some useful information on sanctions here which doesn’t come from activists nor union officials:

    https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/universal-credit/sanctions/check-sanction/

    I have no personal knowledge of UC, but the CA information on this part of their website does seem to reiterate that there are some work-related (or ‘conditionality’) groups which can only receive lowest level or low level sanctions, or indeed no sanction at all. In other words the hypothetical/actual cases quoted above cannot represent every case.

    Like

    • Has anyone said it does represent every case? Perhaps the convoluted rules allow a small minority to be spared excessive suffering? Government propaganda would require it to be so.

      The information in your link suggests that some people might possibly survive if they know their ‘rights’ in the first place and can navigate the system. Others definitely would not survive. Even a low level sanction is enough to tip an impoverished claimant over the edge.

      If just one individual claimant falls foul of this vile system, it’s one too many. There should be no sanctions. Period.

      Like

      • No – you’re right; no one has said that the hypothetical/actual cases above represent every case.But neither have any of the three articles on this subject acknowledged that there is a group which will never be sanctioned, and a balanced article might very well have said that, or at least acknowledged that these worst cases didn’t apply to everyone.

        So far as knowing one’s rights is concerned, it appears that Citizens Advice, if no one else, have a good handle on this ie not every claimant needs to know every wrinkle of the system, just one telephone number.

        On your last point of having sanctions at all I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect claimants to undertake certain activities in exchange for benefits. (And those activities range from nothing to quite concentrated job searching). Once I’ve taken that view then I must also take the view that those who don’t carry out those activities must be subject to some sort of sanction – if nothing else it’s unfair on those who do comply if the penalty for non compliance is zero. So we must differ on that.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Having spent all day on phone to welfare rights unit,who in turn contacted DWP whilst I was hanging about on the phone , I can confirm this is utter garbage which is not the fault of the blogger,but the information given even if in good faith. Work Conditionality has always been a part of the Jsa/Wrag process.Sanctions are also part of the process for non compliance.

    Like

  13. The DWP has basically gone rogue. If the rules that do exist that are precise and clear (a relatively small number) were actually correctly implemented and followed to the letter, we would not have up to 70% of WCA / PIP/ other assessments overturned on appeal. But we do. There is a huge gap between the law and the way the JCP operates that leave people without any form of support – the loss of life line benefits is an established fact.

    I suspect the DWP’s own staff being confused is that if the rules don’t explicitly ban something, the implementers will be making up a new variant to satisfy their punishment need. The DWP will deny whatever is going on anyway, like the claim there were no targets for sanctions, but it was part of JCP performance evaluation, and some offices were giving away “stars” for people hitting sanction targets. So basically those of us who are subject to the rule of the cruel and kafkaesque DWP have absolutely no faith when told something can’t happen. It probably already has.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Spot-on!

      They make their own rules up from jobcentre to jobcentre, even from ‘advisor’ (bully) to ‘advisor’ (bully). And they’re given free rein to do so.

      Even the terms ‘work coach’ & ‘advisor’ are bollocks. All they are is rubber-stampers, commissioned to get people off benefits by any & all means.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Discussion about this topic often focuses on the immediate needs of the sanctioned claimant – which is understandable if they are facing hunger and/or homelessness and could be sick and/or disabled. What is often overlooked is the longer-term consequences of being put into the Work-Related Activities Group (WRAG) and not the Support Group (SG) (where it is accepted that the claimant cannot work).

    If a claimant in the WRAG doesn’t find work within twelve months, they lose their benefit. If memory serves, they are then told to claim Job-Seekers Allowance (JSA) where they are assumed to be fit and well and able to work.

    Worse than this, they also lose their entitlement to contribution-based benefits for good. This is significant because if you claim contribution-based benefits (ie you claim on your National Insurance contribution paid into the system when you were working), you are given a higher amount which is not means-tested. This can make a huge difference to what you might be able to claim in the future including your old age pension.

    The present system is designed to ruthlessly weed out claimants who have paid into the system and reduce them to the level of someone who has never paid into the system (and we all know how demonised they are). It’s all very disturbing. For me as a WASPI woman, they are trying to phase me out of existence altogether.

    Like

    • Unless I’m misinterpreting completely the CA information linked to here:

      https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/universal-credit/interview/claimant-commitment-what-group/

      there are actually 4 levels of WRAG rahter than a generic WRAG.

      “The 4 work-related activity groups are:

      ‘no work-related requirements group’ – you don’t have to do any activities to prepare or look for work

      ‘work-focused interview group’ – you have to go to regular interviews with your work coach at the Jobcentre to get support with preparing for work in the future. You won’t have to look for work, be available for work or prepare for work now

      ‘work preparation group’ – you have to do activities to prepare for work, eg attend training, do some work experience, write a CV, go to interviews with your work coach at the Jobcentre to help you find or stay in work. You won’t have to actually search for work or be available for work

      ‘all work-related requirements group’ – you have to do all you can to find a job or a higher paid job. This includes looking for jobs, applying for jobs, going to interviews, etc. You have to be ready and available to take up work straight away”

      ie Three of the groups do not actually have to search for work at all, so can hardly have their benefit stopped for not finding work. It’s only those who get to the last group who have to SEEK work, and can be sanctioned for that, not for not FINDING work.

      But if I’m misinterpreting that, perhaps someone could explain how I’m misinterpreting it.

      Like

      • Graham, should people work for their JSA in poundland & tesco if they’re unable to find a job?

        A straight yes, or no will suffice.

        Like

      • Hello again, Graham.

        I have been through this distressing and degrading system and knew nothing of there being four WRAGs until I read this blog and your link.

        For me, a few years ago in the time of the coalition government, there was Incapacity Benefit which was replaced with a two-group system called Employment Support Allowance (ESA). The two groups were the Work-Related Activities Group (WRAG) and the Support Group (SG).

        The people in the WRAG were being phased out of the system (see my comment above) leaving the people in the SG to be described as the ‘people most in need’ (which meant the other lot didn’t matter or were ‘scroungers’ and would utimately lose their entitlement to contribution-based benefits).

        I can only assume the four WRAGs is a new idea to make the people in it as confused and panic-stricken as possible. If the government were to bring back the old Incapacity Benefit with no sub-divisions, people wouldn’t need to be coralled into a separate categories for culling.

        Like

      • Graham, I’ve just re-visited your link.

        If I understand correctly, the “no work-related requirements group” appears to be the “Support Group” re-named. If so, then the SG has been absorbed into the new crop of WRAGs. Interesting how the people who would have been in the SG no longer need “Support”, isn’t it? Propaganda is very subtle in the way it shifts people along in small steps. Soon, sick and disabled people will have been shifted out of existence altogether. Just like nazi Germany in fact. Public opinion didn’t mind then, either.

        Liked by 2 people

  15. @The Toffee

    I can’t give a straight yes or no unless I know the context. If you’re asking whether someone should have to go somewhere to gain work experience in exchange for JSA – then yes. Is that scheme still going?

    Like

    • Why should Poundland or Tesco get labour at the tax-payers expense, Graham? Isn’t that a ‘handout’ to a ‘scrounger’?

      Like

      • It’s my experience that the work experience person actually reduces the productivity of his/her supervisor by the very necessity of providing more supervision than to an established staff member. So it’s swings and roundabouts to the employer.

        On the WRAGs you do accept, having read the CA stuff, that at the lowest level of WRAG there are no sanctions, and that at no level are there sanctions for not finding work, only for failing to seek it?

        Like

    • ‘Work experience’ he calls it…I call it slavery, in breach of the modern day slavery act.

      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/section/1/enacted

      Why should (Some, already massively tax-avoiding) businesses be given free (forced under threat of ‘sanction’) labour at the taxpayer’s expense, graham?

      Why should the disabled be forced to work in the charity shops under threat of sanction that purport to help said disabled people, while the CEO’s rake it in, graham?

      Doesn’t happen? Tell that to my cousin.

      Liked by 2 people

      • See my reply to @margejones99 above.

        I think that schemes no longer in place, but if you have evidence of modern slavery I would urge you to report it to the police. It’s a matter they take very seriously.

        I know we’ll disagree on this, but asking someone to actually do something in exchange for JSA doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

        Like

      • Maybe the scheme isn’t in operation NOW – But it DID happen, didn’t it?

        And you voted for the party that ‘sanctioned’ (pun intended) it.

        How does it feel, knowing you agree(d) with and voted for forced labour & exploitation, graham?

        Like

  16. One man’s forced labour is another’s exchange of JSA for gaining work experience. I’m quite relaxed about it.

    Like

    • ‘Work experience’ ffs….Are you iain dummkopf-schmitt’s more insane, imbecilic twin?

      When I was on the work programme there was a bloke there, 33 years as a research scientist. All sort of diplomas & degrees. Didn’t know anything else. Them knobheads wanted him to work for his dole sorting crap out in a recycling plant – in order to get him ‘work experience’ ffs.

      And they were getting paid OUR tax pounds to do that. Not find him a decent job, but coerce him into sorting shit out, so he’d make their figures look less piss-poor and the ‘advisor’ give the appearance of something not even remotely approaching competent. .

      A smashing way to keep the economy going. Moronic beyond all reason.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Quite relaxed about it, eh graham?

      ‘Quite relaxed’ sending kids up chimneys, or working 20 hour days in the mill, too, no doubt.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Oh and by the way graham – what exactly would you have people have do to claim jsa?

    Sweep streets? We pay council tax which goes to contractors to do that. Why should the contractor get free labour AND taxpayer’s moolah? What happens to those (salaried) employed to sweep the streets if said contractor employs free labour?

    Community work? Criminals get sentenced to that; since when was claiming JSA a ‘crime’? Why should people be forced to associate/ be forced to work with criminals – who just might introduce them to crime?

    So – let’s hear it…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Street sweeping is quite a good example.

      Our council has cut back on such work, let’s say from once a fortnight to once a month.

      Why shouldn’t a JSA claimant actually get into or back into the routine of turning up to work, accepting and carrying out instructions and learning/relearning all the other work related disciplines, health and safety rules etc..

      He/she gets JSA, and work experience and the council gets “free” roadsweeping in the off fortnights.

      Win / win.

      Insofar as your scientist goes – sometimes if there isn’t science work to be had people will have to take lower skilled work. Why shouldn’t they train for that?

      Like

      • There is some convoluted, fanciful logic in these tory ideas, Graham.

        If the Councils were properly run and funded, they wouldn’t need to cut back on the services they are responsible for. The answer is not to use legalized slave labour to fill the gap, but to properly run and fund the service.

        When a job needs doing, pay someone a living wage to do it. That would solve the unemployment problem and get essential work carried out. It’s not rocket science. Unemployed people are more than capable of finding their own work.

        The government’s job is to run the economy competently so that the jobs exist and are properly remunerated. Driving the economy into the ground and using legalized slave labour to carry out essential work is not a substitute for this.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. ‘Why shouldn’t a JSA claimant actually get into or back into the routine of turning up to work, accepting and carrying out instructions and learning/relearning all the other work related disciplines, health and safety rules etc..’

    Oh, so the unemployed… they’re all lazy & feckless are they? You’ll be saying that women are having disabled children just to get access to benefits, next.

    “Oooo, I see her at number 4 had a down syndrome baby and now she gets all sorts of taxpayer funded freebies, the scheming, feckless cow….”

    But you’ll happily allow (Tax-avoiding) companies to receive free taxpaer funded labour? What a gawp.

    Nope – ALL labour should be paid, unless voluntary. And voluntary means voluntary.

    Now go away.

    Like

    • I fear that once you start putting words into my mouth I’ll have to leave this.

      I have not said nor implied that “the unemployed… they’re all lazy & feckless”.

      Like

  19. ‘Insofar as your scientist goes – sometimes if there isn’t science work to be had people will have to take lower skilled work. Why shouldn’t they train for that?’

    Jesus wept…

    You’d have an astronaut or nuclear scientist flogging tickets for car parks rather than use their full potential.

    You really are as gormless as the imbeciles you vote for.

    Liked by 2 people

    • If there were no astronaut jobs going then of course the astronaut would have to do something else.

      Like

      • And therein lies your total ignorance. Astronauts are perhaps THE most multi-skilled people on the planet. They rigourously train in, and must come up to the extremely high standards in all sorts of disciplines/sectors before they’re even allowed to look at the launchpad.

        But hey! The international space station can only hold a certain complement – let’s have the ones here on earth cleaning lavatories or picking up litter until it’s their turn…You know? Make themselves ‘useful’ and all that.

        No wonder this country’s knackered with people like you infesting it.

        Like

  20. @margejones99

    Unfortunately we are where we are, and councils can’t afford all the “nice to haves”. (Well they could f they could persuade the voters in a referendum to accept large council tax hikes)

    And I’m afraid Godwin’s law has reared its head in your post of 19/07/2017 at 7:26 pm ·so I’ll leave it there.

    Like

  21. IMHO to all the good folks who are responding to Hindson you , I fear , are wasting your time and playing his game . His only intention and purpose is to cover the actions of his Govt paymasters by appearing reasonable on the surface but below is an all out Tory Troll who is as unpleasant as they come .Visit some of the articles surrounding Grenfell tower fire and note his ducking and diving to straight questions and utter lack of sensitivity and compassion , and then note here again on this topic the same pattern of comment .
    His reason is to undermine this blog ,make you think it is unworthy of belief and to question its writers honesty. Whilst providing a blanket of cover for the actions of the establishment and his Govt who he defends every time very subtly . There is a very clear pattern of action that he masquerades as ” debate” but successfully in some cases “pushes all the right buttons ” ,that wind up ( me included but no more ) honest decent people with a moral conscience , something he clearly has none of .
    No doubt he will respond to this in his usual whining way playing the injured sole who only wants debate , when in fact he wants to shut down and destroy any alternative narrative to the one his puppet masters want you to hear.
    I leave you to make the judgement and intend no insult to any who have genuinely tried to engage in meaningful debate with this Troll

    Liked by 1 person

    • The original article on this subject was worth undermining, was it not? Its premise was false.

      I’ve absolutely no interest in having this blog shut down; it’s an illuminating insight into Labour infighting if nothing else.

      So long as the blog’s author allows, however, I will continue to question the more dubious stories he puts out.

      Like

      • No graham – it’s original premise isn’t false, per se. It is, however, something that the Govt could do and are thinking about. I’ll bet they’re furtively scurrying around checking to see if they can…Which will make a change – seeing as they ‘steamroller’ measures through, and then appeal (and usually lose) later.

        Disabled people who are found fit for work and moved onto JSA CAN be sanctioned, can’t they? So there is some substance.

        The article was about another method that may not be the case as is – but do not completely dismiss the idea it’ll be introduced in future. Toerags have said people aren’t being sanctioned for frivolous reasons. They also said there are no targets for implementation. Both have been demonstrably shown to have been outright lies.

        So here we have you – a nobody – accusing skwawkbox of ‘scaremongering’? Wasn’t the Trussell Trust ‘scaremongering’ according to dummkopf-schmitt ?

        The Govt/DWP denies the claim – for now. Why? Because even they don’t have the foggiest. With nobody – not even those who are meant to be ‘in the know’ – knowing what the bloody hell’s going on with UC (I thought your Govt were meant to be ‘capable’?) Skwawkbox’s information is no more or less valid the Govt/DWP’s.

        It’s more probable than possible that this measure will be given the go-ahead, in my opinion. Given the toerag’s form on ‘welfare restructure’ it really ought to be a high priority to the likes of you – who gave them their ‘mandate’ to commit such murderous measures.

        Like

  22. @The Toffee

    I think the very fact that the original article headlined “Disabled claimants told: 2 yrs to get job or be sanctioned for a year ” has been deleted by its author speaks volumes. It just wasn’t true. (The Canary put up something similar and then quickly deleted it.)

    You are of course free to speculate about what may be in the government’s mind for the future.

    Like

    • Says you – conveniently ignoring the fact those on JSA – including the disabled who are (Rightly or wrongly, it’s immaterial) ‘moved’ from ESA onto JSA – can be sanctioned for up to 3 YEARS anyway…Nevermind one year.

      No ifs, no buts – You most definitely implied that unemployed people are lazy with your: “Why shouldn’t THEY get into or get back to the routine of going to work?” accusatory question.

      *Who are ”they” exactly? Do you mean people like me? I’m ‘unemployed’. I’m on ‘benefits’…And nothing about actually paying people a WAGE. Oh, that’s right – it’s ‘experience’.
      Tell you what – why don’t you come & wipe my arse, just to get some ‘experience’ eh, graham? You’re not really qualified to do so, but it’ll do you good to ‘get into the routine’ of it. 🙂

      You answer questions with questions of your own, convincing nobody but yourself you’ve successfully given an answer. Still didn’t answer the question of what happens to the already employed (under contract) street cleaner’s job security, or why the unemployed should do ‘community service’ like common criminals.

      I strongly suspect it’s because you believe claiming JSA (Or any entitlement) is a ‘crime’. You think forced labour under penalty (serfdom, in other words) is ok, you’ve admitted as much without actually having the bollocks to be entirely straight out with it.

      You’re a shithouse.

      Like

    • It’s a pity they saw fit to delete it, as sick and disabled people are in the situation they describe.

      Only being in the new “no work-related requirements group” (one of the WRAG groups) takes the immediate heat off the claimant and there is no guarantee of staying in it. The sick and disabled people in the other WRAGs are definitely being hounded, as the name “Work-Related Activities Groups” suggests. Under the old Incapacity Benefit system, no sick person was hounded back to work by non-medical officials as they are with the various WRAGs – yet even that was difficult enough to get and keep.

      Re-naming the Support Group “no work-related requirements group” and lumping it in with the newly divided WRAGs, and calling it a WRAG, means we can be tripped up by the form of words we use when describing what is going on. This business shows how clever the government is with their ‘spin’ and why an ever changing, overly complicated system is necessary to silence critics of the new system.

      To the vulnerable people on the receiving end, it makes no difference what form of words is used – they suffer in just the same way and will go on doing so until Corbyn gets to No10.

      Like

  23. Pingback: WRAG sanctions | We Paid In You Pay Out·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s