dwp over 2 years surveillance

the dwp in hull having been carrying out so called covert surveillance for over 2 years (lambwath road) and they are useless at it even using electronic movement systems transmitted from a neighbouring rented house. The police are doing their best to protect the house and lie if challenged by the target-is this the most outrageuos abuse of the RIPA Act, complaints have been made but the agencies just lie. The RIP (OLD FARTS) ARE USELESS SO ITS TIME THE ACT WAS ABOLISHED…HULL DWP USE FLEETS OF NEW CAR RANGE ROVERS, JAGS, MERCS,that cannot be right surley.

Why is this idea important?

the dwp in hull having been carrying out so called covert surveillance for over 2 years (lambwath road) and they are useless at it even using electronic movement systems transmitted from a neighbouring rented house. The police are doing their best to protect the house and lie if challenged by the target-is this the most outrageuos abuse of the RIPA Act, complaints have been made but the agencies just lie. The RIP (OLD FARTS) ARE USELESS SO ITS TIME THE ACT WAS ABOLISHED…HULL DWP USE FLEETS OF NEW CAR RANGE ROVERS, JAGS, MERCS,that cannot be right surley.

Stop ludicrous “family friendly” employment policies that are costing businesses £10’s of Millions

Many business people know what a one-sided joke employment has become.  Politicians have failed to grasp the fact that introducing more legislation makes employing people, particularly Women, unviable.

When someone starts a family, it is a lifestyle choice.  Contraception and Abortion are also available as choices, if not taken – a choice is made.

A business owner pays taxes twice – personally and business-wise – including National Insurance, Rates etc so, therefore, already pays a high proportion of the cost of lifestyle choices.

Yet when someone in their employ has children already or decides to start a family, they are still expected to pay and deal with further disruption.

The following should be implemented:

People should have to answer honest questions upon interview, their childcare arrangements (including in emergencies) are totally relevant to an employer who has requirements for a vacancy.  A primary requirement will be that of turning up.

Emergency family leave should be capped to a low number of days a year, it is the responsibility of a parent to have arrangements in place to enable them to fulfil their contractual arrangements – not an employers responsibility to suffer yet again.

An employer should not have give paid time off to someone to attend Doctors appointments during pregnancy – the NHS already has a huge budget – evening appointments should be available.

An employer should not have to pay out "money for nothing" to those on maternity or paternity leave – holiday pay, other perks etc are a waste of money – they offer no return for an employer.

Time off should not count towards time employed, for example in calculating redundancy payments – the time off is a lifestyle choice.

It is not feasible for an employer to hold a job open when someone is off long-term, when their self imposed sabatical ends, the person is free to see if they are still required and negotiations can commence about part-time etc if mutually acceptable.  As an employer, it is my right to decide if I wish to spend my money on having someone back, or not!

These ideas may not be popular with many of you but remember – when you order at a restaurant, Im sure you wouldnt pay for something on the bill that you havent actually had!

Why is this idea important?

Many business people know what a one-sided joke employment has become.  Politicians have failed to grasp the fact that introducing more legislation makes employing people, particularly Women, unviable.

When someone starts a family, it is a lifestyle choice.  Contraception and Abortion are also available as choices, if not taken – a choice is made.

A business owner pays taxes twice – personally and business-wise – including National Insurance, Rates etc so, therefore, already pays a high proportion of the cost of lifestyle choices.

Yet when someone in their employ has children already or decides to start a family, they are still expected to pay and deal with further disruption.

The following should be implemented:

People should have to answer honest questions upon interview, their childcare arrangements (including in emergencies) are totally relevant to an employer who has requirements for a vacancy.  A primary requirement will be that of turning up.

Emergency family leave should be capped to a low number of days a year, it is the responsibility of a parent to have arrangements in place to enable them to fulfil their contractual arrangements – not an employers responsibility to suffer yet again.

An employer should not have give paid time off to someone to attend Doctors appointments during pregnancy – the NHS already has a huge budget – evening appointments should be available.

An employer should not have to pay out "money for nothing" to those on maternity or paternity leave – holiday pay, other perks etc are a waste of money – they offer no return for an employer.

Time off should not count towards time employed, for example in calculating redundancy payments – the time off is a lifestyle choice.

It is not feasible for an employer to hold a job open when someone is off long-term, when their self imposed sabatical ends, the person is free to see if they are still required and negotiations can commence about part-time etc if mutually acceptable.  As an employer, it is my right to decide if I wish to spend my money on having someone back, or not!

These ideas may not be popular with many of you but remember – when you order at a restaurant, Im sure you wouldnt pay for something on the bill that you havent actually had!

Automatically register for Child Benefit & Child Tax Credit when you register birth

Everyone is required to register the birth of thier child… why can't you just autotcially register for Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit at the same time? I've had to make 3 separate applications to 3 separate governement bodies to give them the same lot of information 3 times.  That's 3 lots of people on the other end processing it, a wast of money, and of my time. Child Tax Credit system failed so miserably that I actually e-mailed the chief exec to register my daugther as the website was down, the phone never answered and the contact given at the Job Centre said they couldn't help.

Why is this idea important?

Everyone is required to register the birth of thier child… why can't you just autotcially register for Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit at the same time? I've had to make 3 separate applications to 3 separate governement bodies to give them the same lot of information 3 times.  That's 3 lots of people on the other end processing it, a wast of money, and of my time. Child Tax Credit system failed so miserably that I actually e-mailed the chief exec to register my daugther as the website was down, the phone never answered and the contact given at the Job Centre said they couldn't help.

Allow Asylum seekers to work until application processed

Give Failed Asylum seekers a Temporary NI number and allow them to work which would help reduce crime and the benefit cost until their application is processed.

Currently  Asylum seekers are entitled to claim support
from the UKBA. This is  £42.16 per
week for a person aged 25 and over, £33.39
per week for a person aged 18 to 24 and
£66.13 per week for couples.

A pregnant woman and children under three can claim
an extra £3 a week. A baby under one year
can claim an extra £5 a week.

Why is this idea important?

Give Failed Asylum seekers a Temporary NI number and allow them to work which would help reduce crime and the benefit cost until their application is processed.

Currently  Asylum seekers are entitled to claim support
from the UKBA. This is  £42.16 per
week for a person aged 25 and over, £33.39
per week for a person aged 18 to 24 and
£66.13 per week for couples.

A pregnant woman and children under three can claim
an extra £3 a week. A baby under one year
can claim an extra £5 a week.

the new medical assessment for incapcity has to be amended

i fully agree that there are many on long term incapacity benefit when they coud be working part-time at least and i full agree that at some point there should be an assessment to see if they really are incapable of work.  however the way the previous government has gone about this is a disgrace.  those who have undergone lafe saving surgery, suffering from cancer are being forced to attend private medical assessments just weeks after their ops, this is to establish whether they are really unable to work (some cant even walk, let alone work, but they have to attend otherwise they get no benefit despite paying into the system for many years) and to see if they deserve any beneift – waiting 8 weeks before any benefit is paid, if they're lucky  – this is completely inapropriate, a disgrace and degrading,  they shouldnt have to beg for benefit, they are sick, they are entitled to the money, they've paid their insurance, the surgeon/consultant/gp  has signed them off – but that doesnt seem enough these days, instead we pay private companies thousands to assess claimants – this is so wrong.  if the claimants are on long term benefit i agree that they should be regularly assessed but by their own consultants/gps/surgeons – the cost of using these private companies could go those in real need who cannot work

Why is this idea important?

i fully agree that there are many on long term incapacity benefit when they coud be working part-time at least and i full agree that at some point there should be an assessment to see if they really are incapable of work.  however the way the previous government has gone about this is a disgrace.  those who have undergone lafe saving surgery, suffering from cancer are being forced to attend private medical assessments just weeks after their ops, this is to establish whether they are really unable to work (some cant even walk, let alone work, but they have to attend otherwise they get no benefit despite paying into the system for many years) and to see if they deserve any beneift – waiting 8 weeks before any benefit is paid, if they're lucky  – this is completely inapropriate, a disgrace and degrading,  they shouldnt have to beg for benefit, they are sick, they are entitled to the money, they've paid their insurance, the surgeon/consultant/gp  has signed them off – but that doesnt seem enough these days, instead we pay private companies thousands to assess claimants – this is so wrong.  if the claimants are on long term benefit i agree that they should be regularly assessed but by their own consultants/gps/surgeons – the cost of using these private companies could go those in real need who cannot work

there has to be time when people properly retire

in this country we have a retirement age 65 – yet we go into supermarkets and see oaps on the tills, filling shelves etc., why is this, its an absolute disgrace, we're clearly not paying enough in pensions – these jobs should be going to the youngsters who dont have an income, cant get jobs and are claiming jobseekers allowance. i have no objection to the oaps who wish to take up small part time work but when they are working to supplement their income and are taking jobs from the youngsters there is clearly something wrong with our system.  it would be much cheaper to give the penisioners more than keeping the youngsters on benefits.

Why is this idea important?

in this country we have a retirement age 65 – yet we go into supermarkets and see oaps on the tills, filling shelves etc., why is this, its an absolute disgrace, we're clearly not paying enough in pensions – these jobs should be going to the youngsters who dont have an income, cant get jobs and are claiming jobseekers allowance. i have no objection to the oaps who wish to take up small part time work but when they are working to supplement their income and are taking jobs from the youngsters there is clearly something wrong with our system.  it would be much cheaper to give the penisioners more than keeping the youngsters on benefits.

ALL BENEFITS NEED TO BE MEANS-TESTED

i cannot belive that once my friend passed 60, he received a free bus pass, free swim pass, the winter fuel payment, got a grant to draft-proof the house he owns – great – lovely we're looking after our pensioners – except he's not a pensioner is he, ( men retire at 65) he still works full time, he and his wife are on a comfortable salary.  this is totally out of order when the real pensioners are struggling.  its about time these blanket benefits were abolished, like child benefit being paid to the prime ministers wife and the poor little single mum – its wrong.  benefits should be there for those in need.

Why is this idea important?

i cannot belive that once my friend passed 60, he received a free bus pass, free swim pass, the winter fuel payment, got a grant to draft-proof the house he owns – great – lovely we're looking after our pensioners – except he's not a pensioner is he, ( men retire at 65) he still works full time, he and his wife are on a comfortable salary.  this is totally out of order when the real pensioners are struggling.  its about time these blanket benefits were abolished, like child benefit being paid to the prime ministers wife and the poor little single mum – its wrong.  benefits should be there for those in need.

Review TUPE regulations

TUPE needs reviewing as it will affect our ability to cut the public deficit.  The original intention was to protect large numbers of workers, particularly in relation to the privatisation agenda however it is applicable across the board and businesses, social enterprises and charities will be unable to deliver public sector contracts as efficiently as possible if we inherit the bulk of the costs, particularly staffing costs.  It is not just salary levels that are an issue but, in the case of public sector workers their pension and sick pay rights that are the major barrier.

Why is this idea important?

TUPE needs reviewing as it will affect our ability to cut the public deficit.  The original intention was to protect large numbers of workers, particularly in relation to the privatisation agenda however it is applicable across the board and businesses, social enterprises and charities will be unable to deliver public sector contracts as efficiently as possible if we inherit the bulk of the costs, particularly staffing costs.  It is not just salary levels that are an issue but, in the case of public sector workers their pension and sick pay rights that are the major barrier.

Experience required before insurance will be given?

I'm in my 40's and have been driving for 20 years.  I have a full clean licence and have driven cars minibuses and even a 7.5 ton vehicle – all in a private non-paid capacity.  I'm unemployed and would like to use my extensive driving experience to drive larger vehicles Class 1 and 2 LGVs.  However, it seems that I won't be able to do this.  All of the recruitment/driving agencies are telling me that I won't be able to apply for the numerous driving jobs available because I don't have enough experience and as a result I won't be able to be insured.  This creates a catch-22 situation because I will never get the experience because I can't get insured to drive.  I would like the government to look into what appears to be a block to new entrants into the LGV jobs market.  This is preventing people like me applying for jobs that are out there and which I could do but am being prevented getting into what amounts to a closed shop.  I want to get back to work and I would like to do that through driving but I'm facing a brick wall which I can't get around.  Can you help?  Thanks 

Why is this idea important?

I'm in my 40's and have been driving for 20 years.  I have a full clean licence and have driven cars minibuses and even a 7.5 ton vehicle – all in a private non-paid capacity.  I'm unemployed and would like to use my extensive driving experience to drive larger vehicles Class 1 and 2 LGVs.  However, it seems that I won't be able to do this.  All of the recruitment/driving agencies are telling me that I won't be able to apply for the numerous driving jobs available because I don't have enough experience and as a result I won't be able to be insured.  This creates a catch-22 situation because I will never get the experience because I can't get insured to drive.  I would like the government to look into what appears to be a block to new entrants into the LGV jobs market.  This is preventing people like me applying for jobs that are out there and which I could do but am being prevented getting into what amounts to a closed shop.  I want to get back to work and I would like to do that through driving but I'm facing a brick wall which I can't get around.  Can you help?  Thanks 

make full time jobs, not 16 hour a week jsa replacement positions!

Stop allowing big companies like tescos building supermakrets then filling them with staff who can only get jobs at 16 hours a week! this is obviously some con the government has with these companys to get people off their dole figures. 16 hours a week is  maximum hours you can work on jsa before it is stopped. its clear that they are doing this as a way of getting people off dole, but its an underhand way of keeping people stuck in poverty! how r people suposed to be independent from benefits when they cant get full time work? make full time jobs and give people proper jobs where they can get a proper wage!

Why is this idea important?

Stop allowing big companies like tescos building supermakrets then filling them with staff who can only get jobs at 16 hours a week! this is obviously some con the government has with these companys to get people off their dole figures. 16 hours a week is  maximum hours you can work on jsa before it is stopped. its clear that they are doing this as a way of getting people off dole, but its an underhand way of keeping people stuck in poverty! how r people suposed to be independent from benefits when they cant get full time work? make full time jobs and give people proper jobs where they can get a proper wage!

FOSTERING AND ADOPTION

ITV 1 HAS A PROGRAMME ABOUT THE SHORTAGE OF FOSTER PARENTS FOR KIDS NEEDING CARE – BUT THE REALITY IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE CARE AND WELLBEING OF CHILDREN IS A SHABBY ' JUMBLE SALE' WAY AND ALL CHILDRENS CARE SHOUDL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE LOCAL COUNCILS AND PUT INTO A NATIONAL BODY TO DELIVER.

 

HERE IS THE PROBLEM:  PERSON A IS A WORKING WOMAN – SINGLE – WITH A HOUSE AND NO MORTGAGE – SIX YEARS OF YOUTH WORKER EXPERIENCE – AND TEN YEARS OF MANAGEMENT WORK WHICH SHE CAN GO BACK TO, AND WANTS A CHILD. IN ORDER FOR HER TO ADOPT SHE MUST GO THROUGH OVER 6-12 MONTHS ASSESSMENT, AND IN THAT ASSESSMENT SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE ON REPEATED OCCASSIONS UNDERMINED THE APPLICATION BECAUSE OF NORMAL AND NATURAL THINGS – LIKE HAVING AN ELDERLY MOTHER (WHO IS NOT DISABLED OR MENTALLY CHALLENGED) – OR THE FACT THEY ARE SINGLE OR …ETC

 

HOWEVER A FOSTER TEENAGE GIRL GOT PREGNANT BY A LAD WHO IS NOW IN PRISION AFTER SEVERAL DIFFERENT CAR STEALING ACTS AS A TEENAGER.  SHE SHOWED – AS OVER 50% OF MOTHERS FROM CARE DO – SIGNS OF REJECTING HER BABY IMMEDIATELY.

 

THE SOCIAL SERVICES PUT THE CHILD WITH THE GRANDMOTHBER – WHO IS IN FACT THE MOTHE ROF THE SON – IN A COUNCIL HOUSE WHICH GRANNIE HAS HER OTHER SON AND TEENAGE GIRLFIRNED AND THEIR NEW BABY AND HER OTHER CHILD OF 14, A THREE BED COUNCIL HOUSE.  GRANNIE WHO CREATED THE TWO SONS AND ONE DAUGBHTER THROUGH THREE DIFFERENT ABSENT FATHERS BECAUSE SHE "WANTED KIDS" IS QUITE CLEARLY ABLE TO WIPE A CHILDS BOTTOM BUT NOT ABLE TO BRING UP GOOD AND SENSIBLE ADULTS WHO THINK ABOUT USING CONTRACEPTION AND IN FACT THE STATE SUBSIDY OF GRANNIE FOR THE WHOLE OF HER LIFE PRODUCING BADLY BROUGHT UP CHILDREN HAS MEANT SHE EVEN ASKED SOCIAL SERVCIES TO GIVER HER A  FOSTERING PAYMENT – WHICH THEY REFUSED BECAUSE AS A GRANNIE SHE IS NOT PAID.

 

tHIS BABY – ACCORDING TO THE MOST MODERN NEUROSCIENCE AND AUTHORS SUCH AS SUTHERLAND, BERRY, AND SO FORTH, SHOULD THRIVE INTO BEING A STABLE AND GOOD CITIZEN IF IN THE VERY EARLY STAGES OF THE BABY'S DEVELOPMENT SOMEONE WAS GIVEN THE BABY WHO IS A GOOD PARENT.  INSTEAD DUE TO LEGISLATION DEMANDING THE NATURAL PARENT IS GIVEN ALL THE CHANCES TO RAISE THE CHILD AND BECAUSE THERIR IS NO JUDGEMENTAL ATTITUDE TO THE BABY=-MACHINE-DOLE SCROUNGER GRANNIE, THE STATE SEES IT AS PREFERABLE TO HAND THE BABY TO GRANNIE – THAT IS UNTIL OF COURSE GRANNIE PRODUCES ANOTHER CAR STEALING TEENAGER  FRON THIS BABY.   GRANNIE THINKS SHE IS A GREAT PARENT – SOCIAL SERVICES GET A CHEAP OPTION – BUT THE SOLVENT SANE AND LOVING GOOD PARENT IS TOLD THAT THERE ARENT THAT MANY BABIES AVAILABLE.

 

THE STATE WILL HAVE A BILL FOR NOT ONLY GRANNY AND HER BROOD OF NE'R DO WELLS BUT ALSO THE STATE WILL PAY FOR THE BABY TO DO SO, AND THIS ISNT WHAT NYE BEVAN OR THE ORIGIANL HUMANIST MOVEMENT WANTED OF STATE HELP TO THE POOR OR NEEDY.  THERE USED TO BE THE IDEA THAT A HANDOUT WAS IN ORDER THAT THE PERSON RECOGNISED AN OBLIGATION TO THE SOCIEITY THAT HELPED, WHEREAS GRANNY, HER TEENAGER CAR STEALING SON AND HIS CHILD, SHOW NO INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING MORE THAN LIVING OFF A HANDOUT AND COMPLAINING TGHE SOCIAL WORKERS ARE C+++S.  tHE FACT IS EVEN A SOCIAL WORKER OF EXPERIENCE WOULD AGREE – OFF THE RECORD – THAT WE SHOULD TAKE CHILDREN FROM THESE PEOPLE AND GIVE THE BABYS IMMEDIATELY FOR ADOPTION IN ORDER TO GIVE THE BABY A CHANCE – AND ITS THE COURTS AND THE PUBLIC WHO GET SWEPT UP IN THE ODD PERSON WHO BLEETS THE SOCIAL SERVICES TOOK THEIR KIDS AWAY.  Talking to happily grown adult adopted children and askign gthem if they would have preferred to have been brought up by their alcoholid, drug taking, or simply thick natural parents it is clear that once they met the real thing they were quite relieved not to have been.

Bring in a forced adoption for baby, on the grounds that if you do not do so then the damage caused to the child's neural system – brain damage basically – could have been avoided if the child was immediatgely adopted.

 

Ironically however the good parent who is childless – is given a hard time proving their ability to look after or care for a child, whilst the awful and incompetent natural parent is given every opportunity to mentallly retard their baby – without the same limitations of a judgement call.

 

If you judge prospective adoptive parents as stringently then why are so many baby's still being brought up in awful natural familes who would not ever meet the same levels that adoptive parents have to.

 

The waste of time is of course that the adoptive parents get their time wasted because social services are afraid of a placement going wrong – and they will always go wrong for 10% of adoptions anyway.  Once again we have lost the point of the whole thing.  Get the child with good people – as soon as possible as they are born – and you raise a good adult, and socieity.  Leave a child with bad natural parents and the longer they are there the harder it will be for a good foster parent/adoptive parent to help change the neural circuitry of the baby, and enable them to challenge the brain damage caused by natural parents.

 

We all know that it isnt poverty that causes an adult to be damaged but damaged parents, yet there are thousands of babies being brought up by people who would not pass the adoption application process, and thousands of people who get put off by the arduous and labourous time wasting of the adoption process – who would be better at raising our society.

 

instead the child is put with a family who are judged ;good; foster parents – that is someone who has children of their own – and the child then develops as the add-on to the family and told frequently that this foster placement is not stable and will not last so that when they are moved on or back to mum and dad – the child is not shocked.

Then this instability and brain damage produce adults who produce babies – and the cycle of creating generation after generation of damaged children is continued. 

It is time we did say – this is good parenting and this is a bad parenting – and stop hiring and training social workers who actually dont really have the powers to change that at all.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

ITV 1 HAS A PROGRAMME ABOUT THE SHORTAGE OF FOSTER PARENTS FOR KIDS NEEDING CARE – BUT THE REALITY IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE CARE AND WELLBEING OF CHILDREN IS A SHABBY ' JUMBLE SALE' WAY AND ALL CHILDRENS CARE SHOUDL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE LOCAL COUNCILS AND PUT INTO A NATIONAL BODY TO DELIVER.

 

HERE IS THE PROBLEM:  PERSON A IS A WORKING WOMAN – SINGLE – WITH A HOUSE AND NO MORTGAGE – SIX YEARS OF YOUTH WORKER EXPERIENCE – AND TEN YEARS OF MANAGEMENT WORK WHICH SHE CAN GO BACK TO, AND WANTS A CHILD. IN ORDER FOR HER TO ADOPT SHE MUST GO THROUGH OVER 6-12 MONTHS ASSESSMENT, AND IN THAT ASSESSMENT SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE ON REPEATED OCCASSIONS UNDERMINED THE APPLICATION BECAUSE OF NORMAL AND NATURAL THINGS – LIKE HAVING AN ELDERLY MOTHER (WHO IS NOT DISABLED OR MENTALLY CHALLENGED) – OR THE FACT THEY ARE SINGLE OR …ETC

 

HOWEVER A FOSTER TEENAGE GIRL GOT PREGNANT BY A LAD WHO IS NOW IN PRISION AFTER SEVERAL DIFFERENT CAR STEALING ACTS AS A TEENAGER.  SHE SHOWED – AS OVER 50% OF MOTHERS FROM CARE DO – SIGNS OF REJECTING HER BABY IMMEDIATELY.

 

THE SOCIAL SERVICES PUT THE CHILD WITH THE GRANDMOTHBER – WHO IS IN FACT THE MOTHE ROF THE SON – IN A COUNCIL HOUSE WHICH GRANNIE HAS HER OTHER SON AND TEENAGE GIRLFIRNED AND THEIR NEW BABY AND HER OTHER CHILD OF 14, A THREE BED COUNCIL HOUSE.  GRANNIE WHO CREATED THE TWO SONS AND ONE DAUGBHTER THROUGH THREE DIFFERENT ABSENT FATHERS BECAUSE SHE "WANTED KIDS" IS QUITE CLEARLY ABLE TO WIPE A CHILDS BOTTOM BUT NOT ABLE TO BRING UP GOOD AND SENSIBLE ADULTS WHO THINK ABOUT USING CONTRACEPTION AND IN FACT THE STATE SUBSIDY OF GRANNIE FOR THE WHOLE OF HER LIFE PRODUCING BADLY BROUGHT UP CHILDREN HAS MEANT SHE EVEN ASKED SOCIAL SERVCIES TO GIVER HER A  FOSTERING PAYMENT – WHICH THEY REFUSED BECAUSE AS A GRANNIE SHE IS NOT PAID.

 

tHIS BABY – ACCORDING TO THE MOST MODERN NEUROSCIENCE AND AUTHORS SUCH AS SUTHERLAND, BERRY, AND SO FORTH, SHOULD THRIVE INTO BEING A STABLE AND GOOD CITIZEN IF IN THE VERY EARLY STAGES OF THE BABY'S DEVELOPMENT SOMEONE WAS GIVEN THE BABY WHO IS A GOOD PARENT.  INSTEAD DUE TO LEGISLATION DEMANDING THE NATURAL PARENT IS GIVEN ALL THE CHANCES TO RAISE THE CHILD AND BECAUSE THERIR IS NO JUDGEMENTAL ATTITUDE TO THE BABY=-MACHINE-DOLE SCROUNGER GRANNIE, THE STATE SEES IT AS PREFERABLE TO HAND THE BABY TO GRANNIE – THAT IS UNTIL OF COURSE GRANNIE PRODUCES ANOTHER CAR STEALING TEENAGER  FRON THIS BABY.   GRANNIE THINKS SHE IS A GREAT PARENT – SOCIAL SERVICES GET A CHEAP OPTION – BUT THE SOLVENT SANE AND LOVING GOOD PARENT IS TOLD THAT THERE ARENT THAT MANY BABIES AVAILABLE.

 

THE STATE WILL HAVE A BILL FOR NOT ONLY GRANNY AND HER BROOD OF NE'R DO WELLS BUT ALSO THE STATE WILL PAY FOR THE BABY TO DO SO, AND THIS ISNT WHAT NYE BEVAN OR THE ORIGIANL HUMANIST MOVEMENT WANTED OF STATE HELP TO THE POOR OR NEEDY.  THERE USED TO BE THE IDEA THAT A HANDOUT WAS IN ORDER THAT THE PERSON RECOGNISED AN OBLIGATION TO THE SOCIEITY THAT HELPED, WHEREAS GRANNY, HER TEENAGER CAR STEALING SON AND HIS CHILD, SHOW NO INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING MORE THAN LIVING OFF A HANDOUT AND COMPLAINING TGHE SOCIAL WORKERS ARE C+++S.  tHE FACT IS EVEN A SOCIAL WORKER OF EXPERIENCE WOULD AGREE – OFF THE RECORD – THAT WE SHOULD TAKE CHILDREN FROM THESE PEOPLE AND GIVE THE BABYS IMMEDIATELY FOR ADOPTION IN ORDER TO GIVE THE BABY A CHANCE – AND ITS THE COURTS AND THE PUBLIC WHO GET SWEPT UP IN THE ODD PERSON WHO BLEETS THE SOCIAL SERVICES TOOK THEIR KIDS AWAY.  Talking to happily grown adult adopted children and askign gthem if they would have preferred to have been brought up by their alcoholid, drug taking, or simply thick natural parents it is clear that once they met the real thing they were quite relieved not to have been.

Bring in a forced adoption for baby, on the grounds that if you do not do so then the damage caused to the child's neural system – brain damage basically – could have been avoided if the child was immediatgely adopted.

 

Ironically however the good parent who is childless – is given a hard time proving their ability to look after or care for a child, whilst the awful and incompetent natural parent is given every opportunity to mentallly retard their baby – without the same limitations of a judgement call.

 

If you judge prospective adoptive parents as stringently then why are so many baby's still being brought up in awful natural familes who would not ever meet the same levels that adoptive parents have to.

 

The waste of time is of course that the adoptive parents get their time wasted because social services are afraid of a placement going wrong – and they will always go wrong for 10% of adoptions anyway.  Once again we have lost the point of the whole thing.  Get the child with good people – as soon as possible as they are born – and you raise a good adult, and socieity.  Leave a child with bad natural parents and the longer they are there the harder it will be for a good foster parent/adoptive parent to help change the neural circuitry of the baby, and enable them to challenge the brain damage caused by natural parents.

 

We all know that it isnt poverty that causes an adult to be damaged but damaged parents, yet there are thousands of babies being brought up by people who would not pass the adoption application process, and thousands of people who get put off by the arduous and labourous time wasting of the adoption process – who would be better at raising our society.

 

instead the child is put with a family who are judged ;good; foster parents – that is someone who has children of their own – and the child then develops as the add-on to the family and told frequently that this foster placement is not stable and will not last so that when they are moved on or back to mum and dad – the child is not shocked.

Then this instability and brain damage produce adults who produce babies – and the cycle of creating generation after generation of damaged children is continued. 

It is time we did say – this is good parenting and this is a bad parenting – and stop hiring and training social workers who actually dont really have the powers to change that at all.

 

 

Local Housing Allowance

As a Landlord I am increasingly dumstruck at the previous governments idea to give tenants control over the housing benefit that they receive. This is simply not working. The tenants are receiving £300-£400 per month and not passing it on to the Landlords. This causes them problems paying for their buy to let mortgages and in turn causes Landlords to evict tenants who in turn start the whole process again. They fraudilently take money off the government, spend this on whatever they want and the Landlord is left out of pocket. I rang a tenant last week to see when she was going to pay her rent and she was in Spain!! How can she afford to go on holiday to Spain? She has enjoyed 2 weeks in the sun, come back, packed up some of her stuff, left the house a mess and has done a moonlight. This should never have happened. They cannot look after large amounts of money. Christmas time is a nightmare. They receive £400 a couple of weeks before Christmas and you honestly expect them to pass on this money. It does not happen. They have a jolly good time 

Why is this idea important?

As a Landlord I am increasingly dumstruck at the previous governments idea to give tenants control over the housing benefit that they receive. This is simply not working. The tenants are receiving £300-£400 per month and not passing it on to the Landlords. This causes them problems paying for their buy to let mortgages and in turn causes Landlords to evict tenants who in turn start the whole process again. They fraudilently take money off the government, spend this on whatever they want and the Landlord is left out of pocket. I rang a tenant last week to see when she was going to pay her rent and she was in Spain!! How can she afford to go on holiday to Spain? She has enjoyed 2 weeks in the sun, come back, packed up some of her stuff, left the house a mess and has done a moonlight. This should never have happened. They cannot look after large amounts of money. Christmas time is a nightmare. They receive £400 a couple of weeks before Christmas and you honestly expect them to pass on this money. It does not happen. They have a jolly good time 

benifits – immigrants

immigrants should not be eligible for all benifits until their future is determined, in fact, to me, there seems to be a strong case that all benifits be restricted, until one becomes a citizen of this country.

Why is this idea important?

immigrants should not be eligible for all benifits until their future is determined, in fact, to me, there seems to be a strong case that all benifits be restricted, until one becomes a citizen of this country.

direct payment instead of support people

direct payment to people who need housing related support they can choose which provider they want no auditing of providers has to be done only adult proptection issues rest can be done by market forces customers/service users wil not use poor providers and reduce cost of procurement process and providing services. Note when the client is resposible enough to do this and the council does not use this as an excuse to prevent peole gettting their own funding.  Council not to decide support provider the customer should .  I am service user  with mental health problems who needs support want my own money to pay for my own support and choose my own provider. As I am totally capable and well due to ongoing support. I am not happy with the council deciding my provider i have little or no choice at the moment to only take their so called approved providers. Based on their selection criteria and not my own. I know what care and support i need so why can't i choose who provides my support as well as care via direct payments for supporting people. council takes over my life nearly all the time I feel at the mercy of the council will my support be cut will I funded in the future. If not I will end up in hospital cost the country more money than supporting people problem our local mental helath facilities are over stretched and under funded as "the mental ill are a soft target we do not have a say in society  we always seem to take the brunt of NHS cut because we do not have often the energy and health to fight cuts

Why is this idea important?

direct payment to people who need housing related support they can choose which provider they want no auditing of providers has to be done only adult proptection issues rest can be done by market forces customers/service users wil not use poor providers and reduce cost of procurement process and providing services. Note when the client is resposible enough to do this and the council does not use this as an excuse to prevent peole gettting their own funding.  Council not to decide support provider the customer should .  I am service user  with mental health problems who needs support want my own money to pay for my own support and choose my own provider. As I am totally capable and well due to ongoing support. I am not happy with the council deciding my provider i have little or no choice at the moment to only take their so called approved providers. Based on their selection criteria and not my own. I know what care and support i need so why can't i choose who provides my support as well as care via direct payments for supporting people. council takes over my life nearly all the time I feel at the mercy of the council will my support be cut will I funded in the future. If not I will end up in hospital cost the country more money than supporting people problem our local mental helath facilities are over stretched and under funded as "the mental ill are a soft target we do not have a say in society  we always seem to take the brunt of NHS cut because we do not have often the energy and health to fight cuts

Leave childcare vouchers unchanged

The Labour Government announced plans to cap the savings from childcare vouchers for higher-rate taxpayers.  These plans were included in the Coalition's Budget.  If the changes go ahead, higher-rate taxpayers will save around £600 a year from childcare vouchers, while basic-rate taxpayers will continue to save around £900 a year. 

The proposed change will require employers to assess each parent's income at the start of each tax year.  Having made this assessment, they will then need to determine whether parents are entitled to the basic-rate allowance (£55 per week) or the higher-rate allowance (£28 pw).  Any changes to employees' voucher orders will then need to be processed between the start of the tax year and the April payroll run, to avoid employees receiving more vouchers than they are entitled to.  This proposal is going to cause an unnecessary administrative burden for employers, at a time when the Government is supposed to be trying to cut red tape.  Many employers may feel the proposals are virtually unworkable.

In addition, the proposed changes will penalise employees who temporarily stop receiving childcare vouchers, for example while they go on maternity leave, as well as having an adverse effect on employees who are currently receiving childcare vouchers but who move to a new employer after April 2011.

The savings generated by the proposed changes are relatively small, so I would suggest that the Government would be wise to retain the status quo and to scrap the proposed changes.

Why is this idea important?

The Labour Government announced plans to cap the savings from childcare vouchers for higher-rate taxpayers.  These plans were included in the Coalition's Budget.  If the changes go ahead, higher-rate taxpayers will save around £600 a year from childcare vouchers, while basic-rate taxpayers will continue to save around £900 a year. 

The proposed change will require employers to assess each parent's income at the start of each tax year.  Having made this assessment, they will then need to determine whether parents are entitled to the basic-rate allowance (£55 per week) or the higher-rate allowance (£28 pw).  Any changes to employees' voucher orders will then need to be processed between the start of the tax year and the April payroll run, to avoid employees receiving more vouchers than they are entitled to.  This proposal is going to cause an unnecessary administrative burden for employers, at a time when the Government is supposed to be trying to cut red tape.  Many employers may feel the proposals are virtually unworkable.

In addition, the proposed changes will penalise employees who temporarily stop receiving childcare vouchers, for example while they go on maternity leave, as well as having an adverse effect on employees who are currently receiving childcare vouchers but who move to a new employer after April 2011.

The savings generated by the proposed changes are relatively small, so I would suggest that the Government would be wise to retain the status quo and to scrap the proposed changes.

WORKING HOURS AND TAX CREDITS

I think the coalition government should abolish the rules on the number of working hours for tax credit claimants.   It would encourage many more people to work and reduce the size of the black market economy.  Many people at the moment can only find part time work and it is difficult for them to accept working hours of less than 15 hours which traps them into not working at all and a lifetime on benefits

It would also enable the housing benefit system to be reduced and used by fewer users as it would only support people on n Job Seekers Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance and Income Support.  People working should be supported by the tax credit system instead.  At the moment the housing benefit and council benefits is their safety net and the system is very laborious and many people are simply falling through the net. 

This would save large amounts of money for all local governments and allow the administrative burden to be lifted causing savings across the board. 

Why is this idea important?

I think the coalition government should abolish the rules on the number of working hours for tax credit claimants.   It would encourage many more people to work and reduce the size of the black market economy.  Many people at the moment can only find part time work and it is difficult for them to accept working hours of less than 15 hours which traps them into not working at all and a lifetime on benefits

It would also enable the housing benefit system to be reduced and used by fewer users as it would only support people on n Job Seekers Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance and Income Support.  People working should be supported by the tax credit system instead.  At the moment the housing benefit and council benefits is their safety net and the system is very laborious and many people are simply falling through the net. 

This would save large amounts of money for all local governments and allow the administrative burden to be lifted causing savings across the board. 

Stop theTraining Wage Bill Deplorable attack ?

Training Wage Bill 2010-11
Most of this article will be speculation because the Bill is a Private Members Bill so we cannot get the contents of the Bill.

The National Minimum Wage doesn’t appear to be disappearing any time soon. The official term would be to be repealed, however, I am stating it will become “dissolved” as such Bill is aiming for legislation to bypass (not remove or replace) the National Minimum Wage what appears to be beyond any Government scheme.

A Bill to make provision that persons receiving a training wage are exempt from legislation relating to the minimum wage; and for connected purposes.

The above is a description for the Bill. We can only assume this means apprentices etc. and those deemed to be “training” (outside of Government unemployment/training/employment courses) to be able to receive below the National Minimum Wage.

Why is this idea important?

Training Wage Bill 2010-11
Most of this article will be speculation because the Bill is a Private Members Bill so we cannot get the contents of the Bill.

The National Minimum Wage doesn’t appear to be disappearing any time soon. The official term would be to be repealed, however, I am stating it will become “dissolved” as such Bill is aiming for legislation to bypass (not remove or replace) the National Minimum Wage what appears to be beyond any Government scheme.

A Bill to make provision that persons receiving a training wage are exempt from legislation relating to the minimum wage; and for connected purposes.

The above is a description for the Bill. We can only assume this means apprentices etc. and those deemed to be “training” (outside of Government unemployment/training/employment courses) to be able to receive below the National Minimum Wage.

Simplify the Benefit Process

A relative was told his firm has gone into liquidation and was made redundant immediately.  He is married, his wife works part time and they have a young son.  We have been trying to assist in sorting out which benefits he is entitled to whilst looking for another job.  This system is unbelievable.  It assumes a knowledge of the different benefits before you claim. So far, we have looked at the Statutory redundancy forms which he may (or may not) be entitled to from the NI Fund – this is run by the Insolvency Service.  He may also be entitled to Job Seekers Allowance, run by DWP which he can apply for on line.  Alternatively he maybe entitled to Income based Job Seekers Allowance, which he cannot apply for on line.  He may be entitled to help with his mortgage payments (we haven't worked out how to do that one yet).  He maybe entitled to Council Tax Benefit, which is dealt with locally.  He maybe entitled to change in his Child Tax Credit status but we have been trying to get through on the helpline for 3 hours since 8.15 this morning and all we are getting is 'I'm sorry all our lines are busy, please try again later'. No answer machine, no call back service. 

The Job Centre only deals with JSA, cannot deal with any other benefit and all the benefits have different areas in the Gov website and different helplines.

This is insanity.  There should be a centralised helpline, a streamlining of the process and the Job Centres role should be opened out to encorporate all areas of the benefit system.  No department appears to talk to each other and all are run under individual budgets.  Surely an amalgamation of the helplines and benefits system would save money and make things easier for the people who through no fault of their own have lost their jobs due to the credit crunch and are wanting to go back to work with immediate effect.

Why is this idea important?

A relative was told his firm has gone into liquidation and was made redundant immediately.  He is married, his wife works part time and they have a young son.  We have been trying to assist in sorting out which benefits he is entitled to whilst looking for another job.  This system is unbelievable.  It assumes a knowledge of the different benefits before you claim. So far, we have looked at the Statutory redundancy forms which he may (or may not) be entitled to from the NI Fund – this is run by the Insolvency Service.  He may also be entitled to Job Seekers Allowance, run by DWP which he can apply for on line.  Alternatively he maybe entitled to Income based Job Seekers Allowance, which he cannot apply for on line.  He may be entitled to help with his mortgage payments (we haven't worked out how to do that one yet).  He maybe entitled to Council Tax Benefit, which is dealt with locally.  He maybe entitled to change in his Child Tax Credit status but we have been trying to get through on the helpline for 3 hours since 8.15 this morning and all we are getting is 'I'm sorry all our lines are busy, please try again later'. No answer machine, no call back service. 

The Job Centre only deals with JSA, cannot deal with any other benefit and all the benefits have different areas in the Gov website and different helplines.

This is insanity.  There should be a centralised helpline, a streamlining of the process and the Job Centres role should be opened out to encorporate all areas of the benefit system.  No department appears to talk to each other and all are run under individual budgets.  Surely an amalgamation of the helplines and benefits system would save money and make things easier for the people who through no fault of their own have lost their jobs due to the credit crunch and are wanting to go back to work with immediate effect.

Pensions – Remove obligation to buy annuities

Annuity rates have fallen by over 50% in the last two decades. In 1990 the single life annuity rate for a man aged 65 was over 15.5%, but today it is estimated that you will need to invest around £26k to receive an annuity of £1000. (ie. About 3.8%) 

This is definitely the result of the Annuity Providers being given a captive market by legislation.

 In order to correct the situation and for pensioners to receive a fair return, it is clear that the captive market needs to be removed. Pensioners need to be given alternative, far more independent, options to encourage Annuity Providers to offer a fair deal.

 Please could you give this your urgent attention as it has got to the point where the incentive to contribute to pension funds has been removed.

Why is this idea important?

Annuity rates have fallen by over 50% in the last two decades. In 1990 the single life annuity rate for a man aged 65 was over 15.5%, but today it is estimated that you will need to invest around £26k to receive an annuity of £1000. (ie. About 3.8%) 

This is definitely the result of the Annuity Providers being given a captive market by legislation.

 In order to correct the situation and for pensioners to receive a fair return, it is clear that the captive market needs to be removed. Pensioners need to be given alternative, far more independent, options to encourage Annuity Providers to offer a fair deal.

 Please could you give this your urgent attention as it has got to the point where the incentive to contribute to pension funds has been removed.

Winter fuel allowance

Winter Fuel Allowance should not be paid to British Citizens who have emigrated. The allowance is paid in order to assist the elderly to heat their accommodation properly during the winter months in Britain. It should not be treated as an inalienable right , to which people are entitled , no matter where they live in the world. The allowance bears no relation to the climate of other countries , and should therefore not be paid to people who voluntarily reside abroad.

Why is this idea important?

Winter Fuel Allowance should not be paid to British Citizens who have emigrated. The allowance is paid in order to assist the elderly to heat their accommodation properly during the winter months in Britain. It should not be treated as an inalienable right , to which people are entitled , no matter where they live in the world. The allowance bears no relation to the climate of other countries , and should therefore not be paid to people who voluntarily reside abroad.

Reduce the cost of regulation associated with supporting people

Quality is not created by regulation neither is it guaranteed by having the "right"  policies. Its how you do things and what they achieve that matters.  

The SP regulation does not comply with the "principles of better regulation" and is NEVER subject to cost-benefit analysis. At the moment the inspectors focus on my policies and procedures, checking in deatil that I have dotted the I's and crossed the Ts. They do not consider what I actually achieve.  So the focus is "do you have you an equalities action plan,, that conforms to these standards?" It should be  "how inclusive and equal are you?."

Its akin to going into a shop to buy bread asking about the recipe and nitpicking at the cost of the ingredients and judging its quality on those things  ignoring the taste and how many slices you get for your money!

I believe that if the quarterly monitoring, much of it of input and and the annual review and lovcal VFM assessement were overhauled i could move costs from admin and bureacracy into services for vulnerable people. Achieve more outcomes for the same costs.

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Quality is not created by regulation neither is it guaranteed by having the "right"  policies. Its how you do things and what they achieve that matters.  

The SP regulation does not comply with the "principles of better regulation" and is NEVER subject to cost-benefit analysis. At the moment the inspectors focus on my policies and procedures, checking in deatil that I have dotted the I's and crossed the Ts. They do not consider what I actually achieve.  So the focus is "do you have you an equalities action plan,, that conforms to these standards?" It should be  "how inclusive and equal are you?."

Its akin to going into a shop to buy bread asking about the recipe and nitpicking at the cost of the ingredients and judging its quality on those things  ignoring the taste and how many slices you get for your money!

I believe that if the quarterly monitoring, much of it of input and and the annual review and lovcal VFM assessement were overhauled i could move costs from admin and bureacracy into services for vulnerable people. Achieve more outcomes for the same costs.

 

 

 

 

 

assured tenancies/ pensionfunds

currently one is not allowed to hold residential property in your SAP.

My suggestions is that residential property, let to local authorities/councils on assured tenancies , should be eligible to be held in pension funds

Why is this idea important?

currently one is not allowed to hold residential property in your SAP.

My suggestions is that residential property, let to local authorities/councils on assured tenancies , should be eligible to be held in pension funds

Replace all benifits with one standard payment – everyone eligible

Scrap all current benifits and replace them with one standard benifit everyone is entitled to.

 

You could sack thousands of people responsible for means testing claimants, saving millions.

 

You'd get the money back in tax, combine this with a simplified tax system and the savings on delivering this means alot more money to the claimants.

 

This would negate the agruments people use about being better off not working. Inorder to ensure claimants don't just sit on the dole though you could start a national work program, anyone who does not contribute sufficiently in income tax will have their benifit cancled, or will be given a job by the local council unpaid in order to remain on benifits. these jobs would be litter picking, cleaning bus stops, and general office work.

 

That way people have a carrot to get them working since they won't lose their benifits, and the stick of being out on their ear if they don't contribute.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap all current benifits and replace them with one standard benifit everyone is entitled to.

 

You could sack thousands of people responsible for means testing claimants, saving millions.

 

You'd get the money back in tax, combine this with a simplified tax system and the savings on delivering this means alot more money to the claimants.

 

This would negate the agruments people use about being better off not working. Inorder to ensure claimants don't just sit on the dole though you could start a national work program, anyone who does not contribute sufficiently in income tax will have their benifit cancled, or will be given a job by the local council unpaid in order to remain on benifits. these jobs would be litter picking, cleaning bus stops, and general office work.

 

That way people have a carrot to get them working since they won't lose their benifits, and the stick of being out on their ear if they don't contribute.