POLICE HARRASMENT

Tonight I answered the door because I thought my son had gone out without his keys only it wasn't him it was the police they wanted to come in and speak to me about an incident that happened weeks ago so I told the officer no and shut the door. The officer did not leave he kept knocking on the door and going to the communal flats entrance and pressing the buzzer, I just let the dogs bark because if I went to the door  again I would have killed him.
I consider the continuous knocking at the door  and ringing of the communal buzzer to be harassment because has soon as I declined the officers actions which was if he could come in so I asked what for then when he said I refused him entry because as soon as you let them in they have the power to arrest you, I know the dirty tricks they use and would advise anyone who opens the door to a police officer who asks if they can come in to ask why and what they want.
The think he had come about was something that happened about 6 weeks ago, and as soon as I closed the door on him he should have left not continually knock and ring the communal buzzer for 15 to 20 minutes in an attempt to get me back to the door.
As far as I remember the incident involved an altercation with another resident and dogs, the person made out I assaulted them, but that was after they made a remark about a disability so I have a counter claim of a disability hate crime been committed against me.
Along with the alleged assault was the point of not picking up after the dogs, one which will strongly be contested if it is pushed and the best of the lot is that they gave a list of streets that dogs must be kept on a lead and none of the areas I take the dogs is listed so I will ask any court to point out the streets on the list that relate to where I take the dogs and state that any area not on the list is not included and as a point of law cannot then be said to include surrounding areas, and if they then try and say such I will prosecute them the closest they get to the streets they are walked is around 200 to 300 meters from my home as none of the streets around my home are on the list, I know people will say dogs should be on a lead but it is like finding a loophole and using it and I believe I have found such a loophole that the council cannot get out of.

It will take amendments to by laws to put it right and until then I walk the dogs how I see fit.
I only made one mistake in that I didn't get the officers name and number but may put in a complaint against the police as by OFFICER OR OFFICERS UNKNOWN because once I refused them access they shouldn't have continued to knock at the door or ring the communal buzzer, knowing I wasn't going to answer the door.

Before I finish I will say I take medication that if provoked by anybody I do react and only today I had a go at someone who mentioned dogs on leads I got right in his face before he backed down. I nearly went to the door after 10 minutes or so and hit the officer but felt that knackered that I didn't otherwise there would have been an officer down.

FOI sanctions for not applying for enough jobs

In a twist of fate the DWP are reluctant to say how many jobs a claimant has to apply for so as not to be referred for a sanction. They decided to reply by saying the following

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 19 August 2015. I apologise for the delay in replying to you. You asked:   
Could you please provide me with the minimum number of jobs a claimant has to apply for in a 7 day period to avoid the risk of been referred for a sanction. 
It may be helpful if I explain the role of the Freedom of Information Act. The Act provides a right of access to recorded information held by a public authority like DWP (subject to certain exemptions). The Act does not provide that a public authority must create new information to answer questions; nor does it provide that a public authority give advice, opinion or explanation in relation to issues/policies under question.  
In cases where a customer does ask a question, rather than request recorded information, we do our utmost to provide the recorded information that best answers the question. Once the public authority has provided the recorded information or confirmed that no such recorded information is held, it has met its obligations under the Act. Interpretation of any information provided is left to the requestor. 
We have understood your question to relate to Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants to whom the Jobseekers Act 1995 and Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 apply. As there is no legal requirement for JSA claimants to apply for a minimum number of jobs each week, no legislation or national guidance stating otherwise exists. However, to be helpful you may find the following explanation useful about the entitlement condition for JSA claimants to actively seek work. This has however been provided outside our obligations under the Freedom of Information regime. 
In order to qualify for JSA, a person must be actively seeking work in each week of their claim. This means they are generally expected to do all they reasonably can each week to give them the best prospects of securing employment. The actions that it would be reasonable for the claimant to take will be personalised and tailored to the individual and will be specified on their JSA Claimant Commitment. 
Evidence shows that claimants who engage in active, effective and persistent jobsearch activity are more likely to find work quickly compared to those that don’t. Therefore, the expectation is that for most JSA claimants, looking for work will be a full time job in itself. Claimants are expected to spend several hours each day
looking for work, taking into account any restrictions applied to their availability. However, there is no `set’ time that a person must be engaged in looking for work whilst claiming JSA, rather it is a legal requirement for them to do all that is reasonable for them to do each week. 
If you have any queries about this letter please contact us quoting the reference number above.    Yours sincerely,   
DWP Central FoI Team  


They are clearly trying to say they are not an advice service, when they use so many varied reasons for applying a sanction, one of their excuses is not applying for enough jobs, all that was wanted was a clear guideline on how many jobs a person has to apply for between each signing on period, be it one a day or one per week.
The advisers clearly seem to think that it can vary from day to day and may refer a claimant for a sanction because they only applied for one job per week, while another adviser may refer a claimant for a sanction because they applied for five or ten jobs per week and simply say they are not doing enough to find work. I would have gone further on the request and asked then what details they refer to a decision maker with regards to a sanction referral, do they just put not applying for enough jobs when they refer it to a decision maker or do they actually say the claimant has applied for X number of jobs, something I think they do is the not applying for enough jobs and leave out any figures.

The DWP or JC+ should clearly have it in their rules that a person agrees to apply for a minimum of X job(s) per week and this should be information that can be freely given out to anybody who asks, but it appears the DWP are using the NOT AN INFORMATION SERVICE card to avoid giving out any official, or unofficial, directions of how many jobs a claimant has to apply for. It is my opinion they are lower than a rattlesnakes balls.

Pulling products and contracts

Tesco are pulling products off shelves their latest is Carlsberg lager they are soon going to be left with very few if any branded products. They have pulled products like schweppes, Ribena, just what is this organisation up too? It is my opinion that they will eventually get rid of just about every brand product and go down the ALDI/LIDL route, stocking the shelves with mainly own brand products from their value to the speciality range. They will try and squeeze the brand suppliers out of business, just like they did to local shops.

If the customers let them do this and brand names disappear from shelves then that will be it for the brand names and eventually Tesco, if they are allowed to get away with it, they are hoping to get the product from the makers at cost, or less,  if they don't comply then they are, IMHO, refusing to stock them.
They are effectively holding suppliers to ransom, telling them how much they want and how much they will pay then charging the customers top price, it is time the supermarkets were made to display how much they paid the manufacturer per unit, be it a can or tin, the only way suppliers can compete with demands from supermarkets is to pay the producers less per unit, just like they've done with milk, they pay less but expect the customer to pay the same or more. It's the same with other supermarkets with their 3 for £10 offers they still cost £10, take the cost of mince as an example the first time I bought it you 800g now you get 600g, that's 25% less for the same price and it's the same with all 3 for £10 offers meat cut thinner and less weight but the same number of items in the box but they weigh less.

Once one supermarket does it the others follow, it's the customers who hold the power when shopping not the supermarket, think about it for a minute, if you don't shop there they don't make the money and stuff is reduced because they cannot sell it.
The one thing that any supermarket hates is to see a potential customer go into the store and leave without making a purchase! They wiped out most of the local stores now they want to wipe out the branded product makers, well maybe not wipe them out, but hit them so hard they have no option but to get out by selling to the supermarkets at a low price, then after a while you see a store full of own brand products that creep up in price until they are charging the price that the brand product supplier wanted to charge in the first place. It's called wiping out the competition, they either submit and take the loss or go bust and the supermarket steps in and buys it for virtually nothing and uses the recipe to improve their own products. Once they have removed the competition they go on to increase the prices has they now hold the monopoly they have in all effect removed the premium brand suppliers and can steadily raise their own brand prices and the losers in all this are the low paid and benefit claimants who cannot afford the increased prices.

Scams pulled by supermarkets

I have just come back from shopping and noticed a special offer on a cleaning product, the product was FLASH MULTI SURFACE CONCENTRATED CLEANER 400ml the original price was £2.05, but reduced to 96p.
There was two fragrances on the shelf CRISP LEMON and BLOSSOM & BREEZE I put the blossom & breeze into my basket and continued on round the corner where it was noticed that only the LEMON was 96p all the others were reduced to £1.17, 21p more and the original price for the other fragrances were marked at a full price of £2.49 (£1.17 reduced price).
I have known supermarkets reduce one product while at the same time increasing the same product because it is in a different container, or having the same product on sale at two different prices in the same store, how they do that when they use a bar-code is beyond me.
I wonder how many people just saw the 96p and thought they had the option of two fragrances when on closer inspection of the label it stated CRISP LEMON was the only fragrance on offer at 96p and all the others were 21p dearer. How many didn't even check the receipt after paying for the BLOSSOM & BREEZE fragrance, thinking they would be paying 96p but in fact paid £1.17.
Maybe this was a one off by an employee who just wanted to get the product on the shelf, but in my opinion it was a deliberate ploy to mislead the customer into thinking both the fragrances were on offer at 96p as the customer normally only sees the price not that it relates to just one fragrance.
I emailed the CEO of Morrison's to tell him exactly what I thought, lets see if he replies personally of sends it down the chain for one of his customer service staff to deal with.

Just over 2 years ago

Just over 2 years ago I picked an argument with the DWP, one they had no chance of winning.
They sent me an ESA50 (Employment And Support Allowance) form at the end of April 2013 but I had to hand I had a copy of the previous ESA72 which stated on page to that THEY WOULD CONTACT ME AGAIN ON OR AFTER a time in June, around the 20th, so I sent the ESA50 back blank along with a copy of the second page of the ESA72, and a letter of complaint, then 48 hours later I emailed the DWP with a letter of complaint and a copy of page 2 of the ESA72. About 2 weeks later received a letter from the DWP saying they had told ATOS to issue another ESA50, by the time it turned up I had all my answers written and all the supporting evidence prepared, I waited until they sent the reminder letter after 3 weeks to call them and say I needed more time, all delaying tactics as everything had been sitting ready to go for over two weeks, they gave another 14 days, taking the contact after over the date for returning the ESA50.

After I sent the ESA50 back I then got a letter off the DWP saying that they issued the ESA50 around 2 months before the date on the ESA72 so that the person would have an assessment on or about the date on the ESA72.
I did an email to the DWP saying that they were full of bullshit and I would go to court and page 2 of the ESA72 would be the only evidence I would produce. around the 30th July I got a ESA72 from the DWP saying they had placed me in WRAG, again, and page 2 said the same thing, WE WILL CONTACT YOU AGAIN ON OR AFTER 25/7/15 there was, of course the standard bullshit of they could contact sooner, so I sent another email to the DWP saying as the original ESA50 was received at the end of April please supply copy's of the evidence you had to contact me 2 months before the contact on or after date on the original ESA72 and I sent it as a subject access request, after 45 days I sent another email with the subject heading NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROSECUTE They replied to that within 4 days stating they could not find any evidence to send that would be necessary for me to be contacted sooner than the contact on or after date on the ESA72.
I intended to do a freedom of information request for a copy of the ESA72 in 2013 but totally forgot, when I did put in the request it was late 2014 and they had changed the ESA72 and removed the section about contacting ON OR AFTER, it is my opinion that after my threats to the DWP they shit a ton of bricks and reworded the ESA72 from April 2014. 

There are still signs on ESA85 reports that they are abusing their power and contacting some people early, and that is the ESA85 saying A RETURN TO WORK IN THE LONGER TERM IS NOT ADVISABLE, that normally means 2 years of ESA so even though an ESA72 doesn't state a contact date people on ESA could email the DWP and say that they have read the ESA85 and it advises THAT A RETURN TO WORK IN THE LONGER TERM IS NOT ADVISABLE so as according to their rules the LONGER TERM is usually 2 years you expect a reply of 2 years from the date on the ESA85 that the DWP decision maker has agreed with and you do not expect to be contacted until 2 years after the date on the report.

At the moment the DWP & MAXIMUS are in meltdown and assessment can be delayed by 12 months, or longer, I was looking forward to sending them another blank ESA50 and copy of the ESA 72 but my contact ON OR AFTER DATE has passed so I now leave it up to those with CONTACT ON OR AFTER DATES, which if I am right, could go into 2017, or at least the end of March 2016  to take what action they believe is right for them. 

The above story was told to me by another person, who said I could print it if I changed it to as if it was me that had gone through it so any DWP Muppet who thinks they can harass me by this been posted think again because it's not me personally who told this I am just the storyteller not the person who made the DWP and all the top Muppets shit bricks!   

 

The Budget 8/7/15

THE BUDGET, JULY 2015

“Taken together, all the welfare reforms I’ve announced will save £12 billion by 2019/20 and will be legislated for in the year ahead, starting in the ‘Welfare Reform and Work Bill’ that will be published tomorrow.”
SOCIAL HOUSING
Rents in social housing sector to be reduced by 1% a year for the next four years.
Social housing tenants who earn more than £40,000 in London or £30,000 outside london will be forced to pay the market rent for their home.
TAX CREDITS
Income threshold at which tax credits start to be withdrawn to be reduced from £6,420 to £3,850. The taper rate will be raised to 48%. Income rise disregard will be reduced from £5,000 to £2,500.
Support from tax credits and universal credit will be limited to two children. Families who have a third or subsequent child after 2017 will not receive additional payments for that child.
'Similar changes' to be made for housing benefit.
Tax credit spending will be returned to 2007/08 levels in real terms.
HOUSEHOLD BENEFITS CAP
The household benefit cap will be lowered from £26,000 nationally to £23,000 in London and £20,000 in the rest of the UK. The DWP’s very conservative estimate is that an additional 90,000 households will be hit and that an additional 40,000 children will be forced into poverty as a result. Many families are likely to face eviction.
SUPPORT FOR MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS
Support for mortgage interest payments changes from a benefit to a loan
WORKING AGE BENEFITS
Working age benefits to be frozen for 4 years. PIP, DLA and ESA support group excluded from freeze.
ESA
ESA Work-related activity group . For future claimants only, ESA WRAG will be paid at same rate as JSA.  Osborne says:
"No current claimants will be affected by this change"
BENEFIT CUTS
Osborne says:
“The welfare system should always support the elderly, the vulnerable and disabled people.”
“We will not tax or means-test disability benefits.”
“Those who can work will be expected to look for work and take it when it is offered.The best route out of poverty is work.”
“For those aged 18-21 we’re introducing a new youth obligation that says they must either earn or learn.”
“We’re also abolishing the automatic entitlement to housing benefit for 18-21 year olds. There will be exceptions made for vulnerable people and other hard cases.”
INHERITANCE TAX
No inheritance tax on the first £1 million.  Not something that will affect many of our members, but they will be paying for it from benefits cuts.
STUDENT MAINTENANCE GRANTS
Maintenance grants for students whose families are on low incomes will be scrapped from 2016/17 yearand replaced by loans.
EXTENT OF CUTS
Osborne says £17bn of savings will be announced today, out of £37bn needed. £12bn will come from benefits cuts and £5bn from tackling tax avoidance.
PRE-BUDGET SPECULATION
Benefits and Work will be keeping you posted about budget measures most likely to affect our members.
At the moment, there is speculation that:

• The £12 billion in cuts will be spread over three years instead of two. £8 billion will be cut by 2017/18 and a further £4 billion by 2018/19.
• The household benefit cap will be lowered from £26,000 nationally to £23,000 in London and £20,000 in the rest of the UK. The DWP’s very conservative estimate is that an additional 90,000 households will be hit and that an additional 40,000 children will be forced into poverty as a result. Many families are likely to face eviction.
• Tax credits for people in work will be cut, possibly by cutting the amount of tax credits paid to families with more than two children.
• Social housing tenants who earn more than £40,000 in London or £30,000 outside london will be forced to pay the market rent for their home.
• Tenants will be obliged to pay the first 10% of their housing benefit themselves.
• Maintenance grants for students whose families are on low incomes will be scrapped and replaced by loans.
• Personal independence payment (PIP) and disability living allowance (DLA) will be subject to income tax.
• The work-related activity component of employment and support allowance (ESA) will be abolished, meaning a cut of £29.05 a week for claimants in the work-related activity group.

A true Victorian budget by Osborne, benefits capped to £23,000, £20,000 outside London, ESA Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) dropped to JSA rate for new claimants from April 2016, student grants to be replaced by loans. Only 2 benefits will escape the freeze ESA (SG), DLA/PIP. 
So there you have it rents going up council tax up but your benefits frozen for 4 years as the freeze is likely to start from next year that will see the them up to the election they are going to lose, but not give people a rise for 4 years. But as the amount they say they give you states it's the least you can get by on, within 4 years people will be living in poverty, if not by next April. By 2020 those on JSA will be in poverty relying on food banks
Next April we see those who need support because they cannot work will get just JSA rates if they pass the assessment phase and are placed in WRAG, I personally have been told I should be in the support group but thought what's the point when the assessment phase of ESA meant the amount I got jumped to over £131 overnight then to nearly £160 a week when I got full ESA in 2010, the £5+ seemed just not worth it, in 5 years 5 months I have had just 2 Work Focused Interviews (WFI'S), I don't count the one I had on 27/7/12 that turned into a maternity benefits claim for my daughter, because the person I was supposed to see had a family emergency. 

Just in from Cameron

This has just come to my in-box from that parasite that likes to be known as the PM of the UK!

I'm determined not to waste a second in delivering our manifesto commitments.
So since the election, we have:

• Announced important measures to cut down on waste in the NHS, so that every penny goes on getting patients the best possible treatments
• Carried on backing businesses so they can keep creating jobs - with 2 million more people in work since 2010
• Continued to help people secure a home of their own, with over 100,000 families now helped onto the housing ladder through our Help to Buy scheme
• Introduced the Referendum
• Announced new plans to turn all failing schools into Academies and to make sure all children study key academic subjects, so they get the skills they need
• m Bill to Parliament to give everyone in Britain a say before the end of 2017
• Brought forward plans to help families who want to work hard and get on by giving 30 hours' free childcare to working parents of three- and four-year-olds

We will keep working through our plan to create more security and opportunity in our country - and, with your help, we can secure a brighter future for everyone in Britain.

The NHS spends too much on branded drugs when there are cheaper alternatives, they would rather spend 30p per tablet when you can get the same tablet for 1p . They are paying some company for the name on the box that a patient never sees. I was once in hospital and refused to hand over my medication, stating I was going to self medicate, so when I went to the bathroom a nurse went through my stuff and removed them.

Backing businesses is the Tory way of saying backing work scams where benefit claimants have to work for just their benefits for at least 30 hours a week, so if you divide £74.10 by 30 it's just £2.47 per hour, even less if you're on under 25 rates, it's only £1.93 per hour, even an apprentice earn £2.73 per hour so let's tell Cameron where to stick his head!

100,000 new home owners what happens when the interest rates go up and they are hit with hundreds of pounds per month extra in payments the government cannot keep interest rates as low as they are and keep people buying homes the bubble has to burst sooner or later, IMHO I think another 20/23 years and interest will rocket, and new home owners will find their home and need a place to live and the council will be swamped with homeless people, possibly riots against the organisations the people think are responsible for the crisis.

The referendum is just Cameron's last swan song before he comes out with a fixed result of staying in the EU then he will stay on until 2019 before he stands down to let Osborne take over a party that will be crucified in 2020, that's if he lasts that long. Give people their say on the EU before the end of 2017 not by the end of 2017. With the referendum Cameron could tell the population that it will be 31/12 2017 then he will still have kept his promise of a referendum in 2017

Failing schools are failing schools no matter what they are called be it a school, an academy, a college, or a university, it's just a failure under another name. It's either the teachers are not up to standard or the pupils just aren't interested in what the school wants to teach them, in short the pupils think the subject is not of interest, political correctness has already ruined sports in schools so why not take it further and ruin every other subject?

30 hours childcare may still mean parents can only work 20 hours a week as they may have to drop off the child get across town then put in a shift then travel back across town to pick up the children meaning parents cannot work full time but part time and any overtime would require that they pay for childcare

AND FINALLY
Creating more security really means more snooping on the emails you send, things you post on-line, your text messages, your phone calls, in short they are going to make every one a PERSON of INTEREST, the machine has been created and now your only a number  

SMART METERS AND BT SPORTS

So everyone is supposed to have a smart meter by 2020, or the end of, for nearly a year now I have been waiting to be informed that they can provide me with a smart meter, well last week I got an email saying I could upgrade to one.
The thing is that although the GAS METER is outside the ELECTRIC METER is inside in a cabinet behind 2 sliding doors and it says that if access is restricted to call them. I am not going to call them, instead I am not going to bother I will continue to send in meter readings as and when,  I don't mind doing this even though others I know, my mother been one, saying I should have it installed. But to be honest I got my utility bills down to less than £10 a week for both, and I intend to get them down more.
The utility company will have to knock on my door whenever they decide to do them as they are going to get no help from me. I am fully prepared to submit readings to them every few months and continue to do so, my eyes maybe getting a bit old but I can still send them the readings on the phone app.

Now BT SPORTS they have just informed me that unless I renew for 18 months they will charge me £5 a month for their sports channels. And as they have got the Euro stuff as well that leaves BT, along with sky holding just about all the sports rights for football in the UK, but as I have said regardless of been a customer of theirs if they start to charge for watching they can whistle I will move Broadband provider, even if I have some months left on my yearly subscription to the line rental (12 months for the price of 10) I will even buy the son a SMART TV and cancel the TV license. They won't get through the door if they turn up, I subscribe to NETFLIX but will subscribe to other services as well to get the best of all.
I did the 18month renewal but if they ever want payment for sports then it either goes or I change my provider.

MAXIMUS in Austrailia

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2015/02/23/4183437.htm

If you ever thought Maximus would be any different than the current corrupt lot, think again. They are corrupt in America and Australia. So why should they be different in the UK? The answer is they aren't, they are the same ex ATOS employees, the same LIMA software.

Just like the UK, Australia has areas that were vibrant 50 years ago, just as they was areas in the UK in the 1900's. In Australia Maximus use the name MAX employment solutions, but they are anything but an employment solution.
They are corrupt using any tactic they can think of to say a person has a job or should be sanctioned even just the person not handing over the sheet or the adviser not been there.
Why don't they write out a contract for the adviser to sign saying

1. Any errors notified to you and not corrected the company promise to pay me $50 for each error on each occasion
2. Any forging of a signature, copy and pasting included, the company promise to pay me $1000 for each occurrence 
3. In every case of me providing a signature a duplicate will be provided for me to sign and take with me as evidence, if another form has to be requested the company will pay me $100
4.  The claimant has the right to fully read any paperwork they are asked to sign and refuse to sign anything they do not agree with, without any loss or penalty.
5. Anything signed, and later found that the company in order to obtain a signature the company agrees to pay the claimant $10,000
6. In no circumstances will I (the claimant) sign anything to receive something that is offered to me as free.
7.  I [NAME] act as a witness to agreeing these terms with [CLAIMANTS NAME] and I been the manager [MANAGERS NAME] agree to the terms and conditions in the above document, on behalf of [Company] all payment to be made within 7 days or they increase by 50% of the original amount.

Take 3 copy's so the manager and the adviser can be given one and one can be taken away as evidence, they won't sign so just do as little as possible with them to find work

YOUR SANCTIONED

Just imagine you turn up at the job centre plus for your usual signing on or other appointment, like a work focused interview, only to be told you are going to be sanctioned because they sent you a previous letter and you didn't turn up.
This is the first you've heard of this, you think there is nothing you can do about it and will just have to ride it out the best you can. Well actually you can do something you can fight the corrupt bastards by asking them to supply a copy of the proof of postage and, HERE'S THE CLINCHER, proof of receipt!

In my opinion I call the second part the CLINCHER because they cannot provide any proof of receipt. These letters, if they are ever sent out, will just be pushed through your letterbox with the everyday mail. I have a little trick that you can use to get them to admit this and that is email the cunts!
Your email should go along the lines of

[NAME]                           [FIRST LINE OF ADDRESS]                              [NINO]
                                                                                                                 national insurance number

SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

Please make sure this gets to the correct department

On [DATE] I was informed I would be sanctioned because of a missed appointment, please provide me with the following information

1. A copy of the appointment letter showing the date and time of the missed appointment
2. The date this letter was posted with a copy of proof of postage
3. Proof of postage of receipt of such letter by the claimant or someone at the said address

For each action that you cannot comply with please state a vilid reason as this will be used as evidence against the DWP/JCP in any future action for compensation and prosection of department staff/managers for FRAUD.
In this action I will claim 3/5/10 times the weekly stoppages, or part of the week.

Yours

[NAME]
[PRINT NAME]

If they cannot prove you received a letter, usually a proof of receipt, then a court should have no option but to find against the DWP/JCP.
Amend in yellow to chosen option

 If you follow this through be prepared for a long fight, they may cave in, but they expect the claimant to be the one to cave first. This is only natural as the DWP/JCP think that without money the claimant will submit, but don't be fooled sometimes the county courts will take cases where money is the hardship for free. You could also let local papers know the DWP are been taken to their local court for fraud you never know it may gain interest.

The great MATCH & MORE rip off

There is a rip off going on in the high street, YES that right a rip off in the high street, it's called the Morrison's match & more card. Why are you been ripped off with this? I'll tell you why, it's because they will not do comparison's on items the other place has at a reduced price.
Aldi constantly reduce the price of items in their stores. Morrison's say they will match or beat every other supermarket on price but only on groceries! Today Aldi had iceberg lettuce at 45p but Morrison's was 49p a difference of 4p. The on-line site says they will
We price match branded and comparable own label grocery products, including fresh food, and even those that are on promotion elsewhere.
Given that I got 2 jars of coffee on offer at £2.49 ASDA had it at £2.47 that's 20 points  per jar plus the lettuce and cucumber a total of 120 points and I am sure if I did the full ALDI store I could have  got a lot more. As an introductory offer they gave about 1400 points meaning customers had to get about 3600 points for their first £5 voucher. The only use I can see for this card is to use when you fill the car with fuel, as you have to spend £15 and have a qualifying item to get points. As I said it's basically a card to use and get points on when you fill the car up with fuel as living so close to the supermarket, Morrison's, & not driving due to medical conditions, I may as well sling the card in the bin.

Mcvile work and pensions benefits sanctions

Benefit sanctions see people say fuck you JCP and not turn up at JCP in effect dropping out of the system
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=17193

McVile and Chris Heyes a strategy director from DWP the DWP have more directors than the Titanic had staff.
The minimum sanction doubled in time to 4 weeks while the the maximum time went to 3 years, that's not doubling the time it's increasing the time by 6 times. The first question thrown at McVile was how would sanctions help? McVile did a typical response of avoiding the question even when told to answer it and she was basically avoiding giving a response. McVile said and I quote " best support, the right support. Underpins the effectiveness and fairness." Utter bullshit from McVile!
The witch goes on to say "sanction have a positive impact on getting people back into work." "It has a positive effect of moving people into work as a deterrent."

McVile goes on about the Netherlands and Germany and deterrents along with extra support who does the slut McVile think she can kid. Taking up offers of work and support we hear of JCP managers putting letters in claimants files saying they were sent just so they can inflict a sanction on the claimant. There is no support for claimants it's us against the DWP/JCP

Anyway just watch the link above I will possibly put my fist through the screen if I go through it again    

New wardrobe update

Today they picked up the wardrobe, the original price was £999 but I got it in the sale for £599.54 they said the pick up would be between 15.00 and 18.00 they turned up at 13.35, so much for time slots I bet they were hoping I wouldn't be in.
Well unluckily for them I was in, they had to take it including the back that had dropped off when I moved the wardrobe to get into bed. One slat dropped out when I picked up one end the others when I put it down.
They called at 16:37, I missed the call, but if it was to offer me a replacement they can forget it as the quality of the product wasn't worth £200 never mind the £600 I paid, I was told it was an end of line product but on their site today they have them in stock at the price I paid, I bet the call was to arrange a delivery of a replacement, if so they can feck off I want a refund, if that's their game they have got a battle they will never win.

New wardrobe

about a week ago I ordered a solid wood wardrobe, it was delivered today, my son was in for the delivery. My son unpacked the wardrobe to put together, he shredded the packaging as he went but when he got to the double wardrobe he noticed that the back was smashed. He called me while I was out doing some shopping to tell me he had called them and what I had to do, simply email customerserviceATjdglobal.co.uk and send photo's of the damaged item, simple I hear you say!

Well it was anything but simple first I went through their site but the broken item the 2 door top wardrobe would not let me click on it and choose 1, it's as if they had not put this part in the set or deliberately sent the faulty item in the hope I would not send it back due to their stupid rules like paying return costs, well they have another thing coming, no one should be out of pocket for damaged goods.

Second attempt I used the email address given to my son, customerserviceATjdglobal.co.uk, I wrote out the email attached the 3 photo's the full item photo was not possible because in the first one then sent it within 5 minutes I had a delivery failure notification

Attempt number 3 this time I sent a general enquiry, but with no photo's, possibly goes to the same office, and is just responded too, or as maybe the case not responded too. I found a face book page, oak furniture land problems  knowing what I know after this delivery I wouldn't have bought from them.

I also hit on the idea of emailing the CEO of oak furniture land as well so sent him an email with the 3 pictures I had put in the bounced email. If it only pisses him off it will be enough, and if they say I have got to accept a repair them comes the master stroke I will contact my bank for a chargeback claim citing faulty goods and send them the pictures and the amount I want to claim back if I lose I will then go to the financial ombudsman service and if necessary take action in court against the CEO of oak furniture land.
 £600, minus a few pence is a lot of money for an item that should last a lifetime. It didn't make it to my home undamaged, it either got knocked over and broke in a warehouse or in transit somewhere

One thing about oak furniture land is that after the delivery you don't see any items as previously ordered. The Phoenix Shabby Chic Solid Mango Triple Wardrobe 2 Door Top, is the damaged part that is the one that won't let me put a 1 next to the item and follow on to next and say it's damaged, this leads me to thinking they knew the item was, or may be damaged, before they sent it and altered it on their site so I couldn't report a damaged product.

Today I got 3 calls all missed from oak furniture land then around 16.30 a 4th one, I get that one, they have been told to contact me about the wardrobe by the CEO after I contacted him so some good has come out of it. They ask if I would like to look on their site for another 3 door wardrobe but they have none in that price range of £600 the next one is £699 then £750 or £799 more than I wanted to pay because I also have a new bed coming.
I am stuck with the busted wardrobe until the 27th when they will collect it then when they have it back give a refund.  

DAILY SIGNING ON

Some people are now asked to sign on daily and in some cases they miss out attending places that, unlike JCP (Job Centre Plus) actually has the means of allowing people to look for work.
These drop in centres, as they are known, have computers so people can browse agency sites where many jobs are advertised but don't get put in the universal jobs match site because they only offer a week here or there, sometimes only a days work.

You are paid by the agency at the end of each week/month, just a weeks work every other week can mean you get more then signing on many people do this rather than sign on there are times when you go weeks without any work, but there are times you are never out of work going from one temp job to another.

I knew someone who did this work but they used to tell the firm they were working for to call them direct if they wanted someone for a day or week, they now work full time for one of the employers but they still get calls to go in and work for other employers. This person cut out the agency by getting a day/weeks work at a place and giving them their mobile number, all employers took the number as they could get someone to do the job and cut the agency out of the picture.

The cost of petrol/Diesel

The cost of fuel petrol/diesel has been on my mind for some time with a barrel now costing about £50 maybe less. It is said that the price of a barrel would have to hit £25 for just 8p to come off the price of a litre.
I believe they will let it drop but not to get below £1 a litre, unless the supermarkets go on a price war, then it will be who can hold out the longest at the lowest price.
If you take £1.34 as the price of a litre, I'm using this because it is all worked out for you here, for both diesel and unleaded duty is 58p, but they make out the cost of the oil for diesel is more 51.1p compared to 45.2p for unleaded, it's the same oil yet they say it costs more to produce. VAT is 22.4p compared to 23.1p for diesel the production cost is the same at 1.5p but the retailers profit is 7.1p compared to 4.7p for diesel.

So unless there is some additive they put in diesel to increase the production cost, which would really come under refining then it costs no more to produce a barrel of diesel than it does a barrel of petrol, or should that be a tanker!
Then there is the price of electric and gas they say it is related to the price of oil well we should see a massive cut in the next few months as it's related to the price of oil but the corrupt cunts won't drop the price they will give it out as a bonus on profits. 
Whatever you think about the price of fuel the UK consumer is getting ripped off,
The 1908 Finance Act introduced a petrol duty in the UK, with the rate being set at 3d (£0.013) per UK gallon, bringing the price of a typical UK gallon to 1s 1½d (£5.92 as of 2015^[2]).^[3]
It was then abolished by the Finance Act 1919 after several years of steady petrol price rises and replaced by vehicle taxation, and the tax disc based on horsepower,^[3] after which the cost of petrol was about 4s^{[citation needed]} (£8.02 as of 2015^[2]) per UK gallon.
In 1928, following market reductions in the cost of a UK gallon of fuel to about 1s 2½d (£3.18 as of 2015^[2]), the Government introduced a tax of 4d (£0.017) per UK gallon^[3] bringing the cost of a UK gallon of petrol to 1s 6¾d^{[citation needed]} (£4.1 as of 2015^[2]).
In the 1993 Budget during the Major ministry Norman Lamont introduced a 10p rise and also a 'Fuel Price Escalator' whereby the cost of fuel would be increased annually by 3 per cent above inflation in future years; the Petroleum revenue tax was reduced in the same budget and later abolished. Kenneth Clarke, the new chancellor, increased the escalator to 5p in November of that year. These increases were introduced at a time of considerable change in government transport policy, and followed major UK road protests, including the M11 link road protest and the protest at Twyford Down.^[4] The escalator was increased in 6p per year in 1997 by the Gordon Brown, chancellor for the new Blair ministry.
The escalator was effectively cancelled by the Brown ministry follow severe disruption caused by the fuel tax protests in 2000. Since that time more cautious increases have been applied.^[3] A planned 3.02p/litre rise which was confirmed by the 2012 United Kingdom budget to come into effect on 1 August 2012^[5] was later deferred until 1 January 2013 as short notice

FROM HERE