*OFFICIAL* UKFF RANT thread

[Barrington]

Sorry I guess I missed a few pages but this is in response to surf digby's story about the kids trying to break in and get at his daughter.

 

Thats horrible. I was just thinking that. I hate these fucking street rats. Me and some friends were waiting outside a chinese for our order to be cooked to have a smoke after the fireworks at blackheath were finished. These chavs approached us and one started rapping. We just laughed at him. Then one pulls his phone out and starts recording. i thought for sure this would turn into an attempted happy slapping so had my hand clenched and ready, as did my pals. Luckily they were just being loud and then said have a good night and wandered off. But I hate how they bother people and then will try and fight if you argue back. My thoughts are, if you argue with someone they will argue back. I dont feel the need to get my pals involved if someone is arguing with just me so why do these little shits feel the need to start trouble and then get offended when someone answers back. granted surf its nowhere near as bad as your story because that could have gone horrible, but just grinds my fucking gears. The other thing is they swear at you after trying to break into your house to get at your daughter. If you do grab one give him a dig in the guts with a glove on, no marks and no one will actually believe the little shit

[Surf Digby]

It's rant time. This one's been building up for two weeks now, and letting it out here might prevent me from getting myself into bother.

 

The Job Centre. Or Job Centre Plus, as it is inexplicably and unjustifiably called now.

 

Okay, I am currently unemployed. I started working in 1995, was made redundant in 2001, was made redundant again in 2010, and have had two temporary jobs since then. I'm not exactly a work shy scrounger.

 

Now, whilst unemployed, I am allowed to do voluntary work. Two weeks ago my sister called me, and asked if I was free one day. She's a school governor, and the school she is based at was doing a "Royal Wedding" for the kids. Just a typical school activity day based on topical events. The type where parents go in and help out. Lots of crisps and sausages on sticks.

As I had experience as a wedding photographer, she wanted to know if I was willing to go in and shoot it as if it were a real wedding, so they had some nice pictures of the day. There were a few conditions, with it being a school, but nothing to be concerned about.

 

If I couldn't, then no big deal. There were some teachers with point and shoot cameras that would do them instead.

 

I rang the JC+ and told them what I'd been asked to to, where it was, when it was, and so on. They said fine, so long as I got a letter from the headmaster confirming the details and that it was voluntary, and I signed a declaration when I got back.

 

Wedding day. Smart suit. Clickety clickety. Chocolate cake. Conga line. All done. Quite a fun day, truth be told.

 

So I go into the JC+, sign my declaration and give them the letter. Oh dear, JC+ forgot to mention that to qualify as voluntary work, it must be for a registered charity. Doing voluntary work for a school doesn't count as voluntary, it's classed as "unpaid" work, and if it's decided that I did a good enough job that I deserve paying for it, then they will work on the premise that I did get paid for it.

 

Yes, you read that bit right.

 

So now I have to justify having done potentially "paid" work whilst claiming. I'm already a bit pissed off that no mention of it having to be a charity when I notified them. They knew it was a school, and what I would be doing there, but neglected to mention this important detail. "We can only apologise for overlooking this". Grrr, anger starting to set in.

 

I tell my sister what's happened, and she tells the headmaster. Apparently, all Hell broke loose in the staff room, with outraged middle class women decrying that it's no wonder the country is in a mess.

As luck would have it though, the school is registered as a charity (something to do with specialist facilities for the disabled). I get some more headed paper with the charity number, and a note asking that they call the headteacher if they need anything else.

 

I take it back to the JC+, and get told that this will beforwarded on to the department that's now dealing with it, but as it is a charity, then the matter should be dropped, as I've abided by the guidelines they only half gave me at the start. I may still get a letter from the dept dealing with it, as they were notified before I discovered the school was indeed a charity.

 

Letter comes, and it's asking that I provide evidence of it being voluntary, when, where, why, etc... All the stuff that should be getting forwarded to them already. So I pop in, and ask if I still need to send the letter back, seeing as a) they already have everything they're asking for, and b) I would have to go back to the school to get new letters, and it's half term.

I get told "probably not", by someone who is clearly not sure.

 

As it's my signing day today, I ask again if I need to send the letter back as they already have all the information, and get told to ring the dept myself, as they don't know. Lady on the other end of the phone tells me that it's still being treated as paid/unpaid work despite confirmation of charitable status, and that there is information missing from my declaration form.

Now, I'm not too happy about this, as a) I'd been told twice that once I'd provided the charity number, it would revert to be treated as voluntary and not this paid/unpaid shit, and b) it was an advisor that filled most of the form in. I just checked it was accurate and signed the fucker.

 

This is where it gets even more fucking stupid.

 

I've already provided evidence that the school did not pay me. I've provided evidence that the school was not ever considering paying me. I've provided evidence that the school did not pay anyone else to do the same work. I've provided evidence that the school was not ever considering paying someone else to do the same work .

 

The "missing" information (that was not previously requested) is that they need to confirm if the school theoretically could have paid someone to do it.

 

Well, of course they fucking could. Money exists, so theoretically, had they done the exact fucking opposite of what they did actually do in not paying anyone, yes, they theoretically could have paid money to someone to do it.

This is their argument that what I have done is to be classed as "paid work" despite not getting paid for it, or there ever being the consideration of getting paid for it, which I have provided evidence for.

 

Oh, not enough that I can prove actual events, we need to consider theoretical events that haven't fucking happened. Theoretically I could have walked into the school and set myself on fire. I didn't, and I wasn't even considering it, but theoretically, I could[/c] indeed have set myself on fire, had I lived in an alternate fucking reality where I'm a fucking pyromaniac self harming twat.

 

The ambiguity of using the word "could" makes me think I'm over a fucking barrel here. I'm being asked to provide definitive evidence for a theoretical situation, despite having already provided definitive evidence that the actual situation happened as accounted.

 

What makes this worse is that no fucker in any department seems to be communicating with each other, nor knows what the actual procedures are, as I get told different fucking things each time. The headteacher has asked that they call her if they need any more information, but they won't do that as it's not their usual way of doing things.

So they have access to the information they want, but they won't access it. Marvellous.

 

What the fuck can I do? I can't lie down and say "okay, sanction me for doing paid work", because I've already proven that I haven't. I can't prove a theoretical situation wouldn't have happened if circumstances were different, which seems to be taking priority over actual happenings.

 

They have logs of me phoning them, but no notes on what was discussed. They have their outgoing return calls back to me, logged with times earlier than my initial incoming call to them. I'm constantly being given information that is incomplete, misleading, or just flat out incorrect. They have logs of receiving the letters from the school, but no notes saying what the letter said, so some departments I speak to won't accept it as evidence.

 

They "understand what I'm saying", and "can see where I'm coming from" but won't accept facts over alternatives that they admit are only theoretical and have already been proven to have not happened.

You can apply this analogy to almost any situation, and it's just as nonsensical. If you walk into a hospital and tell them that you theoretically could have set yourself on fire, but actually haven't, they won't treat you for your theoretical burns. Theoretically they could, but they won't.

 

I spoke to my MP about this when they first told me that they were investigating it as paid/unpaid instead of voluntary. He's contacted them and told them that I'm not to be sanctioned over this and they're claiming not to have received any communication from him. My copy of their letter was faxed today, and yet it took another 5 minutes of arguing with them before they'd give me a reciept. For fucks sake, you claim nothing was received, and when I give you mine so that I know you've received it, you won't give me anything where I can prove you've had it?

 

I've no idea if they were just trying to use scare tactics on me, but I could supposedly lose my benefits indefinately over this, and would have to apply for hardship payments so that I could buy food.

Considering I notified them beforehand, and have provided all the evidence they've asked for (except for the theoretical evidence), it seems a bit harsh.

 

I would put anger rating at 5, but it's all still under the surface, and I suspect the situation will get worse before it gets resolved.

 

The moral of this story is, don't do anybody any favours, ever. Fuck the Prime Minister and his "Big Society", where we help people in our communities. If you help people, for no other reason than to be helpful, then you're doing undeclared paid work and the tax man will come after you in your dreams.

 

It's no wonder the country's in a mess, with all you helpful people out there.

[Glenryck Pilchards]

I have sympathy for you mate, but the best thing to do if you are asked to do something similar in the future is just don't tell the Jobcentre. If it happens to fall on the same day that you sign on, just say that you have an interview and ask to sign on a different day. My fiancee is going through a similar thing as you. She is an unemployed qualified teacher and she is doing supply work whenever it comes her way and it is a right ballache(well ovaryache) for her when she has to explain she has worked one day here and one day there. The majority of JC workers are inept jobsworths with an exception of a couple of people who I have met who bendover backwards for you. Unfortunately they are few and far between.

[Surf Digby]

I wouldn't even class what I did as voluntary "work". It was "helping out". People "helped out" in schools 30 years ago when I was little.

 

I gave my sister a hand shifting some slabs in her garden the other week, does that count as theoretical paid gardening work?

 

Here's another thing that's pissing me off.

 

If I want to go out of "the area" for any reason, I have to put in a request. I can see the logic if I'm going away for a few days, but - by their guidelines - I have to request permission to go up to my Dad's house in Nottingham.

 

Nobody has been able to clearly define what "the area" is. The closest I've got is someone saying that I have to apply when I go further than a commutable distance, as that would make me unavailable for any job offers.

 

Okay, fair enough. That makes some sense. However....

 

At the moment, a commutable distance is defined - as per their guidelines - as being one hours travel from home. Nottingham is less than an hour away, so I am expected to apply for jobs in Nottingham, as it's an acceptable distance for me to commute. But at the same time, it's further than a commutable distance if it's for any other reason.

If I'm still unemployed after 13 weeks, my acceptable commutable distance is "90 minutes away". I can get to Rugby, Manchester, Boston, possibly North Wales in 90 minutes. However, places less than 5 miles away I'm expected to ask their permission to go to.

 

Anybody read that thing in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago where the JC+ staff were being told to deliberately make people fuck up? See how easy it is to go by one guideline and inadvertently break another?

 

My last investigation was for not applying for a job that they gave me the details to. It had already closed when they gave me the details, so there was no job for me to apply for.

Still got investigated for that one. It wasn't the Job Centre's fault though. Oh no. It was the employers, for ... erm .... putting a date on that was too early. Or something.

And my fault for not travelling back and in time to get my application in. Even though I was working when the vacancy was active.

 

Cunts.

[Keith Houchen]

When I was on the rock and roll when I moved oop north, I told them that I was interested in voluntary work. The guy who I used to sign on with (who, for the record was extremely helpful in what must be a tiresome, thankless job) advised that I still had to be actively seeking a paid job and was technically in breach of my Jobseekers agreement 'contract' should I not be looking for work on the days I volunteered. I wasn't getting any benefits when I signed on, apart from my NI contributions.

 

Still, nice bloke. Always shook his hand and thanked him for the help and advice he gave me when I landed a job. He was called Farooq as well so that helped.

 

Fuck all compared to what you're going through there, Surf, feel for you, man.

[Green]

Ask them if they could theoretically help you sue the school for theoretical rape as they could have all raped you...theoretically.

 

Seriously though, that sounds absolutely gutting man. Hope you get it sorted.

[Surf Digby]

Considering this is the fifth investigation I've had since November (three of which dispelled after proven to be due to ineptitude/dodginess on their part, the other was just a job I didn't have the necessarys for), anyone want to have a sweepstake on whether they'll successfully get sanctions against me before I find my next job?

 

Ran into an old friend today, and she's going to put a good word in at her place. She works for one of these places that helps people with CVs and stuff, to get them back into work. If she manages to get me a job, I'll let her off for turning me down in '96.

[Mike Castle]

Surely though, any normal charity worker in any random charity store across the country could, in theory, get paid for the work. As they employ managers and shop assistants in most of them still. So to that extent every volunteer across the country should be getting sanctioned based on the exact same circumstances.

[Mike Castle]

I'm talking theoretically, obviously it would be fucking stupid if they did. But on the basis of "could you be paid?" Well... yes, you could be. Whether you're working as a volunteer in a shop, or on phone lines, or in a CAB office. If they wanted to, they "could" pay you. They wouldn't, and they would have no intention of doing so, but they could do so if they chose to.

[neil's bitch]

JC+ are a funny bunch.

 

Back when i was 18 (nearly 6 years ago), me and the mrs moved in together, but in a whole new area which was just outside of south wales, in the countryside. Any before we went, for about a month i was recieving job seekers allowance as i had previously left me job prior to the move. During this time i had no costs at all, as i was living with my mum, and was attempting to generally have a bit of money before i left.

 

Anyway, when i did move, the first thing i did was pop down the local JC+ to sign on, and look for a job. Firstly it being a small place, the ammount of jobs was very minimal and i ended up doing agency work for about 6 months. Secondly, when i did sign on again, i went through all the questions etc, and was told i would get nothing. When i asked why, it wa because "Your partner has a full time job, and your are both under 25........therefore less likely to have a family or need it.". Considering i didnt have any kids, but actually did need it.......i was a bit pissed off to say the least. I did appeal, but the same rules applied. The only thing i got from the appeal was that JC+ could make contributions to my state pension during the time i claimed.

 

So i just didnt bother, and continued with my agency work. Basically for about 9 months me and the mrs lived like hell, she was doing crazy hours as a care worker, and i was doind random hours to try and scrape the odd

[Mike Castle]

I'm talking theoretically, obviously it would be fucking stupid if they did. But on the basis of "could you be paid?"

 

For recognised voluntary organisations the "could you be paid?" question isn't asked so it would not (currently) apply, theoretically or otherwise.

 

Not that it makes Surf's predicament any less shitty or ludicrous, but it wouldn't come up in the scenario you envisage of every volunteer being denied benefits, if they claim them.

And in Surf's issue it's still a recognised voluntary orginisation. It has the registered charity number, therefore it counts.

 

Yes, they wont make every volunteer stop volunteering or lose pay, but based on the exact same stuff they asked Surf, they could, if they chose to do so, do the exact same to other volunteers.

 

My point is that it's obvious they are trying desperately to get Surf off their books, and having seen a way to do so, they're trying every avenue possible, to the point they are blatantly lying and being hypocritical in their methods.

[T_S_S_A]

2. (But upgraded to 5 at the mention of the name "Pete")

 

 

I work at a print firm in Rotherham. We produce letterheads, business cards, compliment slips, booklets, pads and forms for the likes of Barclays, HSBC, British Gas, AA and The DWP (Which includes the UKFF's fave JC+).

 

I work in the Stock Control department on a shift pattern (mornings/afters) alternating with another Dude. We're responsible for picking, cutting and issuing all the paper and card that goes to the printers. The printers also work to the same shift pattern, so my opposite number and I deal with the same group of printers 99% of the time.

 

Printers, as a rule, are idiots. This means that they are too stupid to realise that they are stupid and thus presume they are of normal intellect and everyone else is the same.

 

The problems this creates is that when they cock up a job, or use too many sheets to set up on, the automated printer response is to approach their Team Leader (a former printer ) and inform him that they haven't received enough stock.

 

At this point I will point out that, occasionally, they may be right. It's rare but it does happen.

 

Anyway, when paper comes into the building it is either on bulk pallets tabbed in 500's or (for smaller orders) packets of 500. For the most part the stock that we receive is SRA2 size but the odd stock item will be at SRA3 which means all we have to do is match it to a job and take it straight to the appropriate press.

 

HSBC letterheads are one of the customers that use SRA3 sized paper. 20,000 plus sheets a day can be printed and sent out to branches across the UK. One of the printers that run the HSBC jobs is Pete.

 

Pete (often referred to as Porno Pete for his pedaling of dodgy porn) is a horrendous man. By his own admission he has on shower a week and it's cold because he refuses to have his boiler fixed, he delights in sharing tales of his visits to Doncasters red light district and

<-- click on 'spoiler' to show/hide the spoiler

(Spoilered due to nastiness)

 

he was once seen moving one of his famous unflushable shits from one cubicle to another, bare handed, in order to (in his own words) "spread the load".

 

[close spoiler]

");document.close();

 

Despite all being valid reasons to dislike someone my hatred - and it is pure hatred - stems from his ability to waste stupid amounts of paper, accuse me of short changing him and, even when caught out, continue to lie and declare himself a "Master Printer"...

 

"There's no teaching me now... 30 years on presses for me... I don't need set-ups, just give me the paper n t'ink and I'll show you how it goes..."

 

As mentioned the HSBC stock arrives cut to size and is in packets of 500. Stock Control receive the job numbers and on keying them into the computerised stock control system (Thats another rant...) which gives us quantities for each individual job. We tally these up and issue the paper required, including extras for setting up colour and position, stack them on a pallet and give them to the printer.

 

Even at my most retarded (and I have my moments) this is almost impossible to cock up.

 

So he gets his paper and is running the jobs, I'm going about my business keeping the other presses running, chasing orders with purchasing and dealing with the other idiotic printers. I don't enjoy my job but I'm grateful for it and whilst performing these tasks I'm as content as I'm ever going to be doing what I'm doing.

 

Then it happens... Porno Pete or his team leader trotting up the stairs which leads to...

 

"HSBC stocks short mate..."

 

"It can't be."

 

"It's short, there's none been wasted...You can check the bins, I've wasted about 20 sheets and just banged the rest through..."

 

"Right, I'll go and check your bin...."

 

"There's no need, there's nowt in it...."

 

So I check the bin, it's obviously stuffed with, on average, 2000 sheets of printed stock. On pointing this out I get a lecture on printing and how there must've been an extra job that I didn't account for.

 

What makes it worse is the team leaders inability to see that this fucking oaf is wasting large amounts of cash on a daily basis. Pete has been there for a long time, back to the days of the original owners, when printing wasn't as competitive and paid well. This shite arse gets paid near double what I do, the finishing department is getting streamlined so people are being made redundant, yet he constantly gets away with wasting paper at a disgusting rate.

 

It's not just the HSBC, it's anything he prints, no matter how much stock he gets he always ends up short and always points the finger at Stock Control.

 

I tolerate a lot of idiots in my job, I have little doubt that some folks I work with think I'm a pillock and they, in turn, tolerate me. There is no tolerating Pete though, none at all. It's got to the point where people are saying his name as I pass to wind me up. My team leader has had to advise his to keep him away from me.

 

I'm in no way a violent person, nor am I one who stomps around talking about "knocking people out" and that type of balls. I'm just me, hardly ever had a fight, would probably be a bit crap in one for the most part, but Pete takes me to a place where, if given the chance, I would attack him. I'd use weapons and I would hurt him and there would be no remorse.

 

Cunt.

 

It was more of a ramble than a rant but I feel better for it.

[Surf Digby]

Yes, they wont make every volunteer stop volunteering or lose pay, but based on the exact same stuff they asked Surf, they could, if they chose to do so, do the exact same to other volunteers.

 

No, they couldn't if they're in recognised volunteering roles. If you're a volunteer on the Samaritans phoneline or stocking the shelves in Oxfam or any other widely recognised volunteering role you're covered by the rules published by the DWP on volunteering so long as it's all agreed and signed off beforehand, doesn't interfere with looking for work or availability for interviews and paid work. You have to take what they're saying to Surf in the context of the situation rather than extrapolating it out to possibly include every volunteering role as it wasn't what would largely be seen as a recognised volunteering role.

 

They are clearly trying to stitch him up because he's fallen into a grey area as the role of a photographer is normally a job, even though there's no way the school would have gone to the expense of hiring a pro wedding photogtapher. It's underhand and wrong and I can even see their next line of attack being that he should have signed off as he "chose" to not get paid for the "work."

Yep, and this is why I'm pissed, as they firstly neglected to mention what constitutes volunteer work, and I was also told that once I'd provided evidence of it being a charity, the matter would be resolved. This was again confirmed when I brought said information in. Information was brought in, and nothing has changed.

 

Also, my bank is still empty, and BDC have confirmed this morning that they've received a request to block payments pending investigation. Ooh, they've unleashed the fucking fury now!

 

Johnnyboy, do/have you worked for the Job Centre or BDC? The way you've phrased things makes it sound like you have experience in this area.

[Glenryck Pilchards]

Yes, they wont make every volunteer stop volunteering or lose pay, but based on the exact same stuff they asked Surf, they could, if they chose to do so, do the exact same to other volunteers.

 

No, they couldn't if they're in recognised volunteering roles. If you're a volunteer on the Samaritans phoneline or stocking the shelves in Oxfam or any other widely recognised volunteering role you're covered by the rules published by the DWP on volunteering so long as it's all agreed and signed off beforehand, doesn't interfere with looking for work or availability for interviews and paid work. You have to take what they're saying to Surf in the context of the situation rather than extrapolating it out to possibly include every volunteering role as it wasn't what would largely be seen as a recognised volunteering role.

 

They are clearly trying to stitch him up because he's fallen into a grey area as the role of a photographer is normally a job, even though there's no way the school would have gone to the expense of hiring a pro wedding photogtapher. It's underhand and wrong and I can even see their next line of attack being that he should have signed off as he "chose" to not get paid for the "work."

Yep, and this is why I'm pissed, as they firstly neglected to mention what constitutes volunteer work, and I was also told that once I'd provided evidence of it being a charity, the matter would be resolved. This was again confirmed when I brought said information in. Information was brought in, and nothing has changed.

 

Also, my bank is still empty, and BDC have confirmed this morning that they've received a request to block payments pending investigation. Ooh, they've unleashed the fucking fury now!

 

Johnnyboy, do/have you worked for the Job Centre or BDC? The way you've phrased things makes it sound like you have experience in this area.

 

Get yourself to the Citizen's Advice Bureau, they have quite a bit of clout behind them when the public sector are cocking up. My cousin was having an ongoing battle with JC+ trying to get some JSA for a few months, when he turned to the CAB it was resolved in a matter of a couple of weeks.

[Surf Digby]

Fuck a couple of weeks, I've been given timescales that have now elapsed. The revised date for resolution is today, so I'm going in this afternoon and essentially staging a sit-in until I get something concrete from them.

 

I have receipts for the documents I've provided, I've had recordings of previous calls pulled to verify that the information given to me was incomplete/inaccurate. I'm clean. I've provided everything they've asked for, and can prove what was asked for, and what they "forgot" to ask for.

 

I also have the backing of my MP, of which I have receipt of them having received correspondance from him. Which last time they denied.

 

I may involve CAB later, but as I have everything evidenced, I'm going to go and watch them squirm for a bit.

 

Whilst I'm there, I'll point out that I've been given two conflicting dates for a transfer meeting, which if I hadn't spotted, would mean a 50/50 chance of me technically no-showing.