Flexible New Deal Scandal:
Flexible New Deal

D is for Demotivation

New Deal without a doubt is very demotivating for participants. People generally on New Deal have a one week honeymoon period. This is called Induction. This is the best week of the course although some people criticise it for being stretched out for activities that could be completed in 2 days maximum.

This typically consists of everything done in Gateway 2 Work and job search. It gets worse for the following weeks after induction. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Ipswich Unemployed Action and New Deal Scandal has confirmed that Ipswich Borough Council has granted YMCA Training full planning consent for Dencora House.

Dencora House is a detention centre located on Whitehouse Industrial Estate – isolating New Deal participants from society. Even in an industrial estate, the property has a perimeter fence, the entrance is a vast distance from the main road and towards the opposite side the place is shielded from an even busier road by trees – it is good to see trees but I can’t help thinking that this place was chosen to keep the unemployed away from the town centre where most of the towns jobs actually are: funny that …and also where all the recruitment agencies are and the Jobcentre. They think the unemployed goes around creating crime such as stealing so sticking a large group of them in an industrial estate seems a way of solving that problem.

View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

C is for Cherry picking!

Government contractors (those that deliver welfare schemes such as New Deal) are well known to “Cherry pick” (Also known as “creaming“) and to “park” clients. “Cherry picking” (or “creaming”) means selecting those that are easier to help (in the case of New Deal; those that are deemed closer to the labour market or simply put “job ready” – as highlighted by Benefit Busters Episode 2 where New Deal participants were segregated into rooms).

“Parking” is when clients are deemed too difficult to help (such as not being “job ready”; regardless of being paid to do so) and receive little or none help at all. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

B is for Boredom

Whether you are 18, 30 or 60 you will find the disorganised 13 Week New Deal courses very boring. Episode 2 of Benefit Busters clearly highlights sticking a pool of people into overcrowded rooms without a timetable doing 30 hours a week of “intensive job search”. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

A is for Abuse

Jobseekers are in receipt of continuous abuse, harassment and defamation from New Deal Providers and even Jobcentre Plus staff.

As highlighted on the Benefit Busters series, in particular the second Episode, not only is the environment for jobseekers extremely bad natured but the treatment by staff is. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

New Deal Scandal can reveal that the Department for Work and Pensions has no intention for making any prosecutions for prime contractors deliberately defrauding the system. The Department for Work and Pensions currently has no plans of stopping Flexible New Deal contracts being awarded to prime contractors who have previously defrauded the system on numerous occassions for the New Deal contracts. View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

Well, not any more…

(former) Secretary of State: James Purnell MP

View the rest on Flexible New Deal Scandal

The Independent Watchdog for the Department for Work & Pensions

We hope you’ll find us a useful resource in helping to recognize, combat and raise awareness of abuse of power involving the UK government’s largest department, a department dependent upon a sea of civil and judicial servants, we repeatedly find not doing their job properly.

In March 2007 the then Department for Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman MP spoke on BBC1’s Question Time of “transparency” and “adherence to law”.

It is with ongoing sadness, we find her former department failing in the latter, this campaign providing the transparency parliament craves.

On the basis of a detailed body of written evidence demonstrating wrongdoing, we seek; abolition of the Office of Social Security Commissioners (OSSC) and the Parliamentary Ombudsman (PO), as they stand.

We likewise campaign for lay involvement in social security appeals, whether by jury or panels, to combat abuse of power in these private judicial courts which we find breaking the law, contrary to their function, as Parliament requires; to uphold it.

We also want to see change in the complaints procedure, again by way of truly independent adjudication for staff misconduct and disciplinary action for all demonstrated instances of mischief or illegal activity within the DWP and its associated bodies including the Child Support Agency (CSA), now re-branded the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC).

We aim likewise to inform, how public servants, salaried by the British taxpayer, can, for their own reasons, bully and defraud the weakest members in society , while those judicial servants in place to oversee them, not only condone such, join in, cover up and whitewash their colleagues criminal behaviour, the DWP remaining a bastion of the archaic and corrupt practice of closing ranks; a mentality which invites the campaign.

DWP CORRUPTION – YOU AND “THE LAW”

PRIVATE AGENCIES

As a DWP watchdog, we have found the DWP’s Office for Constitutional Affairs (now re-branded the Ministry of Justice) misusing taxpayer’s money to employ private legal firms to knowingly and successfully plead for corrupt and illegal decisions, from corrupt Social Security Commissioners .

USE OF GAGGING ORDERS

We have likewise found corrupt DWP management misusing taxpayer’s money, to hire private legal agencies to threaten and thereby gag private citizens attempting to pursue legitimate redress of grievance within the DWP’s internal grievance procedure long before the internal procedure is exhausted!

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

With regard to the Human Rights Act 1998, adopted by the U.K. we observe breaches of this legislation by the DWP standard, routine practice, the Appeal Tribunal Service and the OSSC invariably tolerating or paying only lip service to such, the DWP having little or no interest in their customer’s legal rights, a situation most benefit claimants know little about.

The so called “new system of protection” namely the European court, requires “domestic remedies” to have been “exhausted”. Although seemingly well intended, the Act is itself vague, slow and beyond the reach of welfare claimants to pursue, such requiring the employment of an advocate for opinion from the court of appeal and beyond, something generally not covered we understand, by legal aid, not forgetting from past cases it could take over sixteen years to get there as in the Deumeland case.

That protection the public could do without and having sought such, never finding a remedy anyway:

Klaus Deumeland was fined DM800 for bringing “vexatious” proceedings his complaint being that the proceedings were extraordinary protracted .

Make up your own mind whether sixteen years is a reasonable period to obtain (or in his case not obtain) the said protection but otherwise keep the legal profession in work at the expense of both the public purse and the victim.

More DWP Jobcentre Plus corruption on www.ukcorruptiontoday.com

£187,500

This is the amount it cost Taxpayers to get a single Jobseeker of the dole.

This is the bombshell that stuck the final nail in the coffin of New Deal. A scheme setup by Gordon Brown for New Labour aiming to get less people claiming unemployment benefits and stop living a “life on benefits” lifestyle.

How did we come across this figure? Well…   The New Deal scheme costs Taxpayers £75 billion and claimants have dropped by 400,000 people (this figure excludes the surge in new claimants due to the economical crisis) – this equates for each person who is not claiming benefit: £187,500!!

Of course, we shouldn’t presume that these 400,000 people have all obtained sustainable full time jobs, due to benefits being made more difficult to claim in this period. We also can’t presume or expect that these 400,000 less claims were a result from the New Deal courses.

What I can quite confidently state that with £75 Billion instead of the 13 week New Deal courses, the Government could have employed 9 times more people (assuming that those 400,000 people got full time jobs) – or 3.6 million people to stick it as a figure – full time on an annual salary of £20,000 for one year.

Alternatively, they could have employed over 360,000 people on a £20,000 annual salary for 10 years.