Graduate takes DWP to court

[Andrew]

Suing: Cait Reilly stands outside the Poundland store in Birmingham she claims she was forced to work at or face losing her benefitS.

 

Cait Reilly, who has been looking for work since leaving Birmingham University, was volunteering at a museum until she was ordered to take a work placement at a Poundland store in the city.

 

 

The geology graduate spent two weeks stacking shelves and sweeping floors after being told she could lose her benefits if she did not accept the ‘mandatory’ post. She is now asking the High Court to quash regulations that her lawyers claim were created by the government ‘without parliamentary authority’ and ‘forces people into futile, unpaid labour for weeks or months at a time’.

 

Girl sues DWP REPORT

[barry luxton]

Should put the detail on her c v for future employers to consider then.

[Ken L]

If she can afford to take this to court, she shouldn't be receiving benefits anyway.

[chesters1]

If she can afford to take this to court, she shouldn't be receiving benefits anyway.

 

got to agree ,perhaps daddy is helping

it is though a JSA scam to provide cheap labour for 6 months with nothing at the end of it and remove her from the unemployed stats ,poundland will just get another free worker when she finishes ,costs the government more and ofcourse her "job" is never vacant for a paid worker.

 

when i was in the clutches of the job center they (before they found out they couldnt) tried to get me to go to a "trial" job and were willing to pay £32 a day taxi fares plus train fares to get me off the list ,i didnt need a trial i needed a job i had been "trialing" for 20 years! ,the "work" place also got £75 a week to "employ me" it must cost the government a bloody fortune to hide the unemployed ,if they put money into creating jobs i think it would be cheaper in the long run

Edited January 12, 2012 by chesters1

[Andrew]

And how many unemployed people are not on the list because they dont qualify for JSA?????

 

When the stats are out, you hear, unemployed and claiming CLAIMING BENFITS, !

[chesters1]

if their not claiming benefits you wont know

generally kids from leaving school to 18 cannot unless its changed in the last decade?

those on I.S. wont appear i think

 

if the gov want the lists smaller spend our endless war money on building council houses and use the youngsters as labour ,its not all bricks and cement they can learn to paperhang paint and garden ,if you bung in 28? billion they are going to waste on giving a set of rails to a private company you could employ them for years ,if they refuse don't give them JSA at the end even if they dont go on to getting a real job you will have houses to show for the money and stop the occupier buying the dammed things ,if they can afford to buy a council house they dont need a council house

Edited January 12, 2012 by chesters1

[Andrew]

I know three lads who cannot clain JSA because their respectives wifes are working, but they still have to sign on. They are recently redundant and claimed for 6 months after that, nowt, not a penny. They have worked from leaving school, never claimed a penny off the country. Local council workers redundant because of the spending cuts.

 

Surely they would appear on the unemplyed list, cos they sign on the dotted line. And i think one of them was ORDERED, to go and do work like the young lass or he would lose his benefits, !, guess what he told them to do.

[chesters1]

if theres money coming in then its fair not to pay JSA ,if you reverse the situation I and many other husbands let their wives stay at home ,mine last worked in 1974 now shes to sick to .It was tough but it was our choice aside from child benefit (if you had any) the only "benefit" you got was a reduced tax bill (married mans allowance) but thats gone now which was an incentive to live a family life.

 

people only see "benefits" as money given to a bunch of idle scroungers ,actually theres few people who dont get them in this country its just called an allowance or "credit" without them we would collapse into a slum dwelling 3rd world country because we generally live above our means

 

it would be interesting to see a pie chart of JSA and the other benefits ,i would presume the JSA bit is far smaller than most of what the DWP pays out?

Edited January 12, 2012 by chesters1

[Andrew]

if theres money coming in then its fair not to pay JSA ,if you reverse the situation I and many other husbands let their wives stay at home ,mine last worked in 1974 now shes to sick to .It was tough but it was our choice aside from child benefit (if you had any) the only "benefit" you got was a reduced tax bill (married mans allowance) but thats gone now which was an incentive to live a family life.

Fair do's Chesters. BUT

 

Put yourself in the lad's shoe's. worked all their working lives, paying taxes, NI, paying for prescriptions etc, See a bone idle get who has never worked a day in his/her life and gets the works. !!

 

Seems very fair dont it !!

Just because the wife is working, penalised, but thats my humble opinion . Who am i to deny the bone idle gets their " entitlemnt benefits " over a hard working man who has claimed nowt of the country, and who has helped pay the benefits of the bone idle scroungers who DO NOT want work.

 

Stay at home wifes, it was the " in thing " to do, creating a stable family, with morals and respect. ( i wont say in your day LoL cos i dont know how old you are )

[chesters1]

life isnt fair ,those with the biggest mouths and cause the most fuss generally get more than those that dont

i'm just 58 with a mentality of an 8

 

the problem is mostly down to our own greed

 

the JSA rules are pretty tight for every bit coming in your rates reduce ,eventually theres a cut of point where one supports the other even when in reality you cannot ,benefits only see whats coming in not going out!

 

the most i ever earned was 11 grand a year if their misses is on average pay they're loaded compared to me on paper ,notice i said on paper they could be living in a vast house with a huge mortgage when perhaps they could live in a smaller one with less of a mortgage ,its their choice

Edited January 12, 2012 by chesters1