Welfare Reform and Genital Swabs

[saramcgrail]

Hi, just to follow up discussions with a few of you lastw eek in Birmingham and a couple of people online, i've done some analysis of the Welfare Reform Bill. Its up on my site www.saramcgrail.co.uk

And yes you did read that right, it does involve pubic swabs ...

S

[mcdermott]

If you've a man and have ever been for a STD test, well, they use genital swabs there. It's a bit like a cotton bud or Q-tip, only one that's been made for an 18 foot man, as it's about three times the size of that.

Then the nurse tells you, 'This doesn't hurt, but it might be a little uncomfortable for a moment'.

The nurse is lying.

Next thing you know, they ram that giant Q-tip right down your Japs Eye.

Youch, youch, youch!!! Even the *memory* of it hurts.

Just say no to genital swabs!

[alli]

Thanks for doing this stuff Sarah - your analysis makes good and interesting reading, - I've already printed off a few copies(more than I wanted or needed - the printer wouldn't stop printing it - and inititially I'd only requested one - so I turned it off - but it still persisted once I logged on again) and handed them around. 

So is this stuff definately going to be implimented - is there anything we can do to stop it from happening?

[saramcgrail]

Thanks for doing this stuff Sarah - your analysis makes good and interesting reading, - I've already printed off a few copies(more than I wanted or needed - the printer wouldn't stop printing it - and inititially I'd only requested one - so I turned it off - but it still persisted once I logged on again) and handed them around. 

So is this stuff definately going to be implimented - is there anything we can do to stop it from happening?

Its a pleasure alli - Its already at the committee stage. As far as I'm aware its pretty much on its way through. Implementation may be another thing altogetehr however. It still might be worth lobbying your MP and contacting DWP with your concerns. However, the way they have responded to the comments on the consultation so far leads me to believe that they are pretty much fixed on this idea. The NTA and JC+ are already working on implementation. It might be worth lobbying the user representative on the NTA board - one Peter McDermott ...... ;-)

Otherwise, I think what's important is to monitor the effect of this and actually work with organisations like the CAB etc to ensure people don't get fucked over uneccessarily.  I'm afraid pretty much all of the field was caught sleeping on this one. No one as far as I could see produced a particularly strong response to it. Which is very depressing really ....

[saramcgrail]

From todays Telegraph. Don't get too optimistic mind, this isn't the same scheme as the current stuff - just very similar. And equally shite.


Benefits pilot scheme scrapped for costing too much
Embarrassed ministers have been forced to scrap a pilot scheme that suspended benefits for offenders who breached community orders because it costs more than £150 for every £1 it saves.


By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 7:46PM GMT 27 Feb 2009

The scheme, run in four areas since 2001, was designed to get tough on those ignoring community service but only saw a 1.8 per cent improvement in compliance rates.

At the same time, it costs more than £650,000 a year to organise and saves less than £4,000, in average, in benefit handouts.

The Ministry of Justice could not even say, last night, how many offenders had had their benefits suspended during the pilots.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has now abandoned the scheme after admitting it "did not provide sufficient value for money".

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It defies belief that anyone could run a system that spends over £150 to save £1. It seems that you could give some public servants a brewery and they'd struggle to organize a booze-up."

The scheme began in 2001 in Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Teesside and West Midlands.

It applied to those serving community orders who were also in receipt of jobseeker's allowance, income support or certain training allowances.

If they breached the conditions of their community sentence they would see jobseeker's allowance and aspects of their training allowances withdrawn for four weeks while income support was reduced by 40 per cent, or by 20 per cent where the offender or a member of their family is seriously ill or pregnant.

But a written ministerial statement slipped out to parliament late yesterday afternoon said the pilot schemes would not continue.

It found there had only been a 1.8 per cent improvement in offenders complying with their conditions as a result of the policy.#

The MoJ were unable to supply accurate figures on how much money was saved but said had there been a five per cent improvement rate it would save £9,500 a year, suggesting less than £4,000 was actually saved.

In contrast, it said the cost of running the scheme would be £652,000.