This has to stop; removing ‘phones; attacking customers?
Originally posted on blueannoyed:
A sick & disabled man attends Newcastle JCP to use the phones to make an enquiry when he was attacked by G4S guard for using his mobile when they refused his request. How is that acceptable? The JCP’s are now removing telephones which is another obstruction claimants now face, not every person has a mobile or a landline. It is now policy that you are intimidated BY G4S security to turn off your mobiles after many used them to film maladministration of JCP staff. So how are they supposed to get the information they require, when JCP staff are too busy to deal with a basic inquiry? They are supposed to be there to assist claimants with their enquiries and help them seek work. This should outrage most people and this man should apologise to the complainant and the claimant should be compensated. At the time of writing this blog a…
View original 164 more words
In a breathtakingly creepy invasion of privacy, Facebook is forcing all smartphone users to install a new messaging app. The Android version of the app — and to a lesser extent the iPhone version as well — allows Facebook to access your phone camera and record audio, call and send messages without your permission, identify details about you and all your contacts, and send that info on to third parties.
If you want to carry on sending and receiving messages on Facebook you now have no choice but to install Facebook Messenger – and give the company access to a wealth of personal data stored on your phone.
The company claims that it is simply improving the user experience, and that it doesn’t have control over the permissions required for the app, specifically on Android phones. But there’s a simple solution to the problem: don’t make users download the new messenger.
Most people installing the app have absolutely no idea what they just agreed to. So we need to spread the word about Facebook’s shocking privacy invasion – and if we can make this petition huge, Facebook will have to listen.
Originally posted on SPeye Joe (Welfarewrites):
Today sees the release of the official Housing Benefit figures from the DWP and these record the figures up to May 2014 and the first four years under the coalition. Snapshot is:
- Overall HB bill is now £24.11 billion up from £20.87 billion in May 2010
- June 2010 coalition says it will reduce HB bill by £2 billion yet it has increased by £3.24 billion meaning the total HB bill is £5.24 billion more per year than the coalition promised the welfare reforms to HB of LHA caps, benefit cap and the bedroom tax would achieve
- May 2010 cost of Housing Benefit to those in work was £2.90 billion and four years later that cost is now £5.13 billion per year.
Time for a closer look at just how bad these figures are for the coalition and, for once dear reader, we can read some FACT about Housing Benefit from…
View original 1,158 more words
Reblogged from- Mike Sivier’s Vox Political (375 more words.)
Remember the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership? Also known as TTIP? The proposed agreement between the EU and USA that – in its current form – would lock future UK governments into a legal framework that protects the privatisation of health services in this country?
A part of the agreement called the Investor-State Dispute Settlement would allow any commercial organisation the ability to sue governments that acted in an anti-commercial way such as – for example – re-nationalising health services that the Conservative-led Coalition has sold off to firms in which many government MPs have shady personal financial interests.
David Cameron used to have a cabinet minister responsible for handling negotiations on the TTIP – Kenneth Clarke, the Minister Without Portfolio (aha! Now we know what he was supposed to be doing for a living).
But of course Clarke left the government in the July reshuffle. He gave every indication that he was delighted to be going, which suggests that work on the TTIP was not agreeing with him.
Perhaps it was the weight of all those people campaigning against the locked-in commercialisation of the NHS, in which treatment for particular conditions will depend on whether it is profitable where you live, coupled with the weight of Cameron’s determination to do nothing to prevent it – all obscured by the veil of secrecy that all involved have tried to draw across the negotiations.
More here- Cameron has shown that protecting the NHS from corporate rape is the last of his concerns (375 more words.)
All this legal mumbo-jumbo for what any man (or woman) in the street, even, I suspect those that agree with Bedroom Tax in principle would say from a common sense opinion OF COURSE AN ESTRANGED PARENT WITH A VISITING CHILD SHOULD BE ALLOWED A SPARE ROOM!
Personally, I am of the opinion a spare room is not a luxury. From the very outset I said the people making this law and those making the decisions will be have spare houses, much less spare rooms.
Originally posted on SPeye Joe (Welfarewrites):
If you are separated from your children and you have a bedroom in your property where your child / children comes to stay and sleep you will be deemed as having a spare bedroom and hit with the bedroom tax. OR SO WE ARE TOLD
You will have been told that the child who lives with the parent who gets Child Benefit is the only one able to have a bedroom. OR SO WE ARE TOLD
NOT ANY LONGER!
A bedroom tax decision by a judge with a known expertise in human rights issues – and the tenant tells me the case was delayed and set aside for this experienced judge too – says:
“The Tribunal was satisfied it is possible, legally, for a person to occupy more than one place as their home at the same time.”
Note well this judge in a 13-page Statement of Reasons of very…
View original 1,145 more words
Surely they can’t do this?
What I mean is they must have made a mistake or deliberately misinterpreted the legislation?
Originally posted on Same Difference:
GET a job – but it does not matter if you cannot travel there.
That’s what amputee Gordon Lang has been told by the Department of Work and Pensions.
Mr Lang appealed against a decision to stop his Employment Support Allowance after he was told he should be able to work.
But that was rejected and he has now lost his ESA. The DWP said it looked at if he could work, not how he might travel to and from a job.
The government department said he might work at home or an employer could supply transport.
The former Royal Marine, who served in the Falklands conflict said: ‘There probably are (jobs that come with transport) but certainly not in Gosport.
‘I’m absolutely gutted. I did 25 years in the services. I took about a year after…
View original 295 more words