Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay, So Fuck Off
The Telegraph/ The Daily Mirror
Two articles, the first about the governments mandatory slave labour plan, the second about the bedroom tax. Lets look at the first article:
A government staged court case that appeared to be a victory while in reality was a total loss. Judge Paedo Freemason ruled that Iain Dickhead Smith’s mandatory work program for the ‘work shy’ (Fuck me if anyone’s work shy its the fucking lawmakers) was illegal.
Well it does until you read the ruling which states that the slave labour program is only illegal because the consequences of not agreeing to work for fuck all are not properly explained. Quite how that is, I haven’t a fucking clue. ‘You work for fuck all, or you lose your benefit entitlement’.
What more is there to explain?
According to the Telegraph, the ruling left Iain Spunkbubble Smith frustrated… Did it fuck.
All the DWP have got to do to get around the ruling is – Derrr – explain the consequences of not become Spartacus better. Doesn’t sound like much of a victory to me.
Especially since Judge Paedo Freemason ruled that the work program doesn’t breach the Human Rights Laws… It fucking does.
The second article is about the Bedroom Tax and how much misery it is going to bring to some of you.
Do you really think the government don’t know that? Do you really think they care, or that a bit of bleating by the government controlled newspapers will make a blind bit of difference?
Course it fucking wont.
You people have to stop this yourself. Unfortunately, to do so, some of you are going to have to put your heads on the chopping block.
Refuse to work as a slave. If enough of you do and shout loud enough, others will join you. In the meantime, yes things will be tough, but they will be a whole lot tougher if you comply.
As for the Bedroom Tax… Fuck Em. What are they going to do if you don’t pay?
Put old women in prison? Turf them out on the street? They might do one or two of you to start, purely in an effort to try and show that they mean business. Imagine the uproar. If you give in, you lose, lose, lose.
Those of you who are going to be affected need to get together and organise yourselves. All agree not to pay. If enough of you don’t, there is fuck all they can do.
Unfortunately, I’m not affected, but I promise you this. If I was the cunts wouldn’t get a fucking penny out of me.
C’mon, fucking man up and stop being treated like your no better than shit on a shoe.You have nothing to fear but fear itself. .. Its time to go to war.
Ministers extend back-to-work schemes despite court ruling that they are unlawful
Ministers are to order a major crackdown on the workshy by extending back-to-work schemes despite judges deciding that the rules behind the programmes are unlawful.
By Peter Dominiczak and Robert Winnett
11:00PM GMT 12 Feb 2013
Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, is said to have been left “frustrated” after Cait Reilly, a university graduate, won a Court of Appeal claim that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland discount store was unlawful.
Senior Government sources have labelled the court’s decision as “odd” and said they want to toughen up the rules despite the criticism from the judiciary.
Ministers are now expected to in the coming weeks outline plans to extend the use of sanctions and mandatory work for the unemployed.
Miss Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, and Jamieson Wilson, a 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver from Nottingham, both succeeded in their claims that the unpaid schemes were legally flawed.
Three judges ruled that the Department for Work and Pension (DWP) had acted unlawfully by not telling unemployed people enough about the penalties they faced if they refused to take part in the compulsory work programmes.
However, the judges conceded that the programmes do not breach people’s human rights.
The Government expressed “disappointment and surprise” at the decision but immediately introduced new regulations to ensure that the work schemes can continue despite the ruling.
Officials are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision.
Miss Reilly’s solicitor claimed that the ruling meant that thousands of unemployed people who have had their jobseekers’ allowance withdrawn for non-compliance with the back-to-work schemes could now be entitled to reclaim their benefits.
A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions said they have “no intention of giving back money to anyone who has had their benefits removed because they refused to take getting into work seriously”.
Miss Reilly had been claiming jobseekers’ benefits since 2011 after she failed to find work after graduating in 2010.
In November 2011, she had to leave her voluntary work at a local museum and work unpaid at the Poundland store in Kings Heath, Birmingham, under a scheme known as the “sector-based work academy”.
She was told that if she did not carry out the work placement she would lose her jobseeker’s allowance.
Miss Reilly complained that she was made to work at the budget retail store and complete “menial tasks” such as sweeping the floors and stocking shelves.
Mr Wilson, a qualified mechanic, was told that he had to work unpaid, cleaning furniture for 30 hours a week for six months, under a scheme known as the Community Action Programme.
He refused to participate and as a result was stripped of his jobseeker’s allowance for six months.
After the ruling Public Interest Lawyers, who represent Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson, said the Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision was a “huge setback” for the DWP.
However, a senior Government source said ministers will press ahead with the work programmes.
“We want to increase the use of mandatory activity and sanctions for the unemployed as the schemes work,” the source said.
“We are studying where the schemes can be extended and will make an announcement within weeks.
“The short, sharp shock is usually enough to get the work-shy back into employment so the plan is to extend the practice, not retreat in the wake of this odd court decision.”
Miss Reilly said she was “delighted” with the judgement.
Bedroom tax: The heart-wrenching letter that shames David Cameron
Julia Jones, who will have to live on just £53 a week, faces losing the home and garden where she scattered her husband’s ashes
This heart-wrenching letter shames David Cameron and the Coalition Government over their wicked bedroom tax.
Julia, who will have to live on just £53 a week, faces losing the home and garden where she scattered her husband’s ashes.
The malicious and divisive tax will punish 660,000 ordinary men and women come April and is rapidly becoming David Cameron’s poll tax.
“Please think again,” Julia begs the PM.
Today everyone should read Julia’s letter. Find out more about bedroom tax injustice on our dedicated page.
Dear Mr Cameron
I heard you in Prime Minister’s Questions say you would look at individual cases on the bedroom tax.
I am 59 years old, David (my husband) and I have both worked since we were 15, paid taxes, did our bit.
We have never been well off but we both did worthwhile jobs.
Five years ago David got melanoma.
He had excruciating treatment and, although still not well, returned to work as he thought it was his duty.
Four years ago he got bowel cancer; he had an irreversible colostomy.
Six months later he returned to work. Two years ago he got brain cancer. Seven weeks later he died.
Throughout all this I was advised I could get care allowance, but I rejected this: he was my husband, it was my duty to care for him.
We lived off the little savings we had until we could return to work.
When he had the colostomy we were allocated this home as David could not climb stairs any more and I struggled.
His ashes are buried in the garden under the rose bushes that friends gave me instead of wreaths.
Mr Cameron, my husband and I were the hard workers you claim to support, we never asked for anything.
I would give everything if this had not happened to us.
Because we were on benefit and sick, you and your government said hateful words against us.
Words that made acquaintances look at us with contempt.
The most powerful men in the country imply we are scum so we must be scum.
You and your government call us scroungers, next door go to work while our bedroom curtains are still drawn.
My curtains were still drawn at 11am as the light made David scream with pain.
Do you not consider that I would give everything for my husband to be alive, me to not have incapacitating pain and we could both be the hard workers we once were?
I live in small 1 1/2 bed bungalow that was built for older people.
It is supported elderly living so I feel safe. It could not house a family as under 55s are not allowed.
You now want to take my home from me. The home that literally made my fingers bleed cleaning as it had been neglected for 20 years when we moved here.
You want me to leave my husband’s ashes, my neighbours who take me shopping and give me some form of social life? I have no family, we could not have children.
I am living without heating at present so how can I pay what I do not have to stay in my home?
Have you any idea how that affects my fibromyalgia?
I eat one meal a day and am in constant pain which is exacerbated by the cold.
I may get Discretionary Housing Benefit. But we both know that is only for 13 weeks at a time and when the pot is empty, it is empty.
I have considered moving but the only property available is far from shops and bus stops and costs £98 per month more than where I am at present. I would be living in isolation.
You say you are building more social housing, but it is too little too late for many of us.
You may blame the Labour policies, but it was your government who introduced this law so I have to hold you responsible.
Mr Cameron, I do not believe you or your MPs are evil men at heart, I believe this is an ill-thought-out plan and you did not understand the consequence of your action.
I ask you to take a step back and look at this again.
THE ABOVE IS JUST PLAIN CRUEL…I AM ASHAMED TO BE BRITISH.
Yours, Julia Jones