Despite all this, lets take a moment to reflect:-
This from the Mirror:-
Tory MP sparks angry backlash with 'I, Daniel Blake is not a documentary' tweet
Tory deputy chairman James Cleverly has been accused of lacking "any sort of humility" over online comments he made about the film I, Daniel Blake. Mr Cleverly faced a barrage of criticism on social media after saying Ken Loach's Bafta-winning drama was "not a documentary" and "a work of fiction".
The MP for Braintree later posted a lengthy rebuttal, saying that while the welfare system is "far from perfect" the film is a "political polemic" that is unfair on Job Centre workers. The Twitter row erupted as it emerged the next phase of the Government's flagship welfare reform will be overhauled following widespread criticism of its planned roll-out.
Released to critical acclaim in 2016, I, Daniel Blake tells the story of a 59-year-old joiner who falls into extreme poverty after his benefits are stopped. After picking up his Bafta in 2017, Loach thanked the Academy for "endorsing the truth of what the film says".
The film, which also picked up the prestigious Palme D'Or at Cannes, was shown on BBC Two on Saturday night and a number of Labour figures encouraged television viewers to tune in. Among them was shadow business secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey, who tweeted: "If anyone is in any doubt of the human cost of Tory austerity on our communities please watch I, Daniel Blake tonight." Mr Cleverly responded to her: "You do realise that it's not a documentary, don't you. Don't you?"
Nearly 4,000 comments were posted in reply to his tweet, while Labour party chairman Ian Lavery accused the Conservative of lacking "any sort of humility". He tweeted: "(Cleverly) lives in a parallel universe hidden from the realities facing thousands of honest UK citizens, struggling to survive the callousness of austerity imposed by his merciless Gvt. Instead of mocking try some compassion, too much to ask?"
Mr Cleverly later returned to Twitter to post a string of tweets in which he defended his comments. He said: "I Daniel Blake, is a powerful and moving film. But it is a political polemic and is particularly unfair on the public sector professionals who work in Job Centre Plus, in my experience they are proactive and helpful. Completely at odds with their portrayal in the film.
"Citing this film as "proof" of how the benefits system works, as a number of Labour MPs have done, is simply wrong." He accepted that the benefits system is "far from perfect, can be intimidating and mistakes can have devastating consequences". But he added: "The system we inherited from Labour was complicated, full of perverse penalties and claw-backs. The changes brought in since 2010 including the National Living Wage, Universal Credit, increased personal allowance, freezes to fuel duty etc have been designed to simplify the system and help people get into work and keep more of the money they earn."
#IDanielBlake remained the UK's top-trending hashtag into Sunday morning. The film caused controversy in Westminster following its release, with then-work and pensions secretary Damian Green calling it "monstrously unfair".
--oo00oo--
(Available free on BBC iPlayer for 28 days).
Chapeau!
ReplyDeleteAmber Rudd, 6-1-19 per BBC news:
ReplyDeleteThe next stage of the universal credit rollout is to be scaled back amid concerns about the controversial new benefits system.
MPs were due to vote on whether to move three million benefit claimants onto universal credit in the next few weeks.
But this vote has been pushed back and Parliament will instead be asked to vote on transferring just 10,000 people to the new benefits system.
Labour said ministers should halt the rollout "as a matter of urgency".
But the government says all claimants will be on universal credit by 2023 as planned.
However, that's not so different from the govt's own "entitled-to" website information from 2017 (https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/Universal-Credit-Pilot), so how much of a 'row back' is it really?
Delete"Once the full roll out for new claims is complete, existing benefit claimants who have not had a change in circumstances will be moved over to Universal Credit at some point from 2019 onwards. A small number will be moved from January 2019 but the main 'managed migration' will start in July 2019 and is currently due to be completed by March 2023."
James Clevrely might just like to refresh his understanding of UC by looking through this A to Z of UC provided today by New Statesman.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.newstatesman.com/politics/welfare/2019/01/z-universal-credit
April 2017, The Telegraph: "This week, the Office for National Statistics published figures showing the level of net dependency on the UK state. Their figures define net dependency as the proportion of households receiving more in benefits (including benefits in kind) than they pay in taxes. The figure now stands at 50.5 per cent."
ReplyDeleteGuardian, Oct 2014 - The DWP claims that universal credit will boost the economy by £7bn a year and help 300,000 households find work... It is estimated 100,000 people will be on universal credit by May 2015 and 500,000 by May 2016... The DWP says that, by 2017, all new claimants, whether with children or not, will be put on to universal credit, but no date has been set for existing benefit claimants to be transferred... He {IDS] hoped everyone would be on the benefit by 2018, though he admitted some difficult groups might not be... Duncan Smith has repeatedly broken his promises on universal credit, promising that a million people would be claiming it by April 2014."
NAO report June 2018: "The Department set out in 2011 that in return for £2.2 billion investment it would transfer eight million households to Universal Credit by 2017. It expected that 300,000 more people would move into work, that it would reduce fraud and error by £2.1 billion a year and that it would save £0.4 billion a year in administering benefits... £1.9bn spend to date on Universal Credit, comprising £1.3bn on investment and £0.6bn on running costs... Position as at March 2018 Caseload (claimants) 815,000... Cost per claim £699..."
Two-faced Liars, cheats & bullies:
December 15, 2010 - The head of the National Audit Office refuses to sign off the House of Commons accounts after finding that MPs had failed to provide evidence to support nearly £14 million in claims.
March 24, 2011 - The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority announces it will allow MPs to spend more on accommodation, travel and staff, paving the way for the parliamentary expenses bill to rise by millions of pounds.
Bizarrely, that was the argument also used to increase MP salaries by 15%:
MP salary 2011 = £65,738
MP salary 2018 = £77,379
Wales Online, Nov 2018: The average cost of expenses claimed so far this year is £16,964 per MP, with approximately £11m claimed by all MPs since January.
So (excluding the generous additional payments for committee work, chairing committees, ministerial posts, etc) the MP basic income averages out around £94,000.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/m06.pdf
How many reading this blog who are fortunate enough to be in employment are given expenses for where they live during the working week, how they get to work, support for being a primary care-giver (aka single parent)...?
NOTE - adjourment debate due in House of Commons Monday 7th January 2019 by a former Social worker Emma Lewell-Buck of South Shields - I hope released prisoner and their families poverty gets a mention.
ReplyDeleteThe topic is due to be
"Adjournment
United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights interim report on the UK - Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck"
Hopefully it will be available to be followed online via
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8b3bfa88-767f-47c9-b307-fd4b3b2cc397
https://www.themj.co.uk/Outsourcing-contracts-hit-lowest-paid-think-tank-reports/198184
ReplyDeleteSodexo et al do not recognise nor reward their workforce because as it stands the gulf between minimum wage salaries and starting salaries for PSO is now becoming negligible, I mean how many really want the extra £3 ph when we are breaching, recalling and using our skills to manage risk and assist changing peoples lives? May aswell stack shelves. Has the unions done a wage comparison with low paid jobs because we must surely be levelling out, it means nothing going and asking for a wage rise without showing how dismal things really are by providing comparisons. I have had to come out of the union and go on the 50/50 pension just to give myself an extra £70 pm take home and its outrageous. I just hope the crc are brought into line with NPS that would be the ethical thing to do for goodness sake even the Tories are giving us a pay rise by raising tax threshold!!
DeleteNaïve
DeleteThere is a strata of society, fortunate on the whole, who do not understand the nature of multiple deprivations and disadvantages. Daniel Blake's life (fictional but a composite and lifelike reality) is a tale of misfortune that most can sympathise with because he was essentially moral and decent. However, I wonder if Ken Loach had risked tarnishing him with qualities that were more challenging, if the extent of popular sympathy would have evaporated?
ReplyDeleteThe Deserving Poor vs. The Undeserving Poor.
DeleteI remember that essay question from CQSW days.
This is what it has come to. While the HMPPS website gets overexcited about the sub-Disney flummery of New Year honours. Something something of the British Empire ffs. I'd thought the Empire was all far in the past and,as such, was another country. Diversity training for recipients methinks.
ReplyDeleteCBE for leading a failing service. #proud
DeleteThe last time psyscales were updated was 2013 pre-crc days since ive been in the crc all I've had is the annual increment plus the small benefit of the tax threshold raise. We're now in 2019, how can they in all honesty be surprised we're angry about the 1.5% ?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.constructionnews.co.uk/projects/contracts/interserve-and-morgan-sindall-among-winners-on-1bn-framework/10038733.article
ReplyDeleteI think as this inquest proceeds, some pretty damning probation practices will be highlighted.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/lawless-thug-who-murdered-young-15650095
'Getafix
'Lawless' thug who murdered young dad while on licence should have been recalled months earlier, inquest told
DeleteA probation officer who managed a violent criminal before he stabbed a young father to death while on licence told an inquest she believed the thug should have been recalled to prison months before committing the murder.
Michael Hoolickin, 27, was knifed five times by Timothy Deakin outside a pub in Middleton, after he chastised him for hitting a woman.
At the time, Deakin, 23, had been released from prison on licence having served half a four year and eight month sentence for biting half a man's ear off.
An earlier inquest hearing in June last year heard that before killing Mr Hoolickin, Deakin had been suspected of breaching his licence by carrying weapons, dealing drugs and spending time with a previous co-defendant.
Senior coroner for north Manchester Joanne Kearsley adjourned that hearing so further investigations could be carried out to determine whether Deakin should have been recalled to prison.
She also pressed the probation service to confirm how many other offenders in Greater Manchester had committed murder or manslaughter while they were on licence.
As the Heywood inquest resumed on Wednesday, Deakin's probation case manager Natalia Atkinson told the court that she believed the threshold for recall had been 'firmly met'.
Yet, by October 2016 - despite claiming to have alerted senior probation officers about increasing concerns over Deakin's risk of harm - he had not been sent back to prison.
Having been at large for eight months, Deakin went on to stab father-of-one Mr Hoolickin five times - a crime for which he was jailed for life, with a minimum of 27 years to serve.
The hearing was told Ms Atkinson had been managing Deakin, who was categorised by the probation service as a 'high risk offender', since March 2016.
He was let out of prison on February 23, 2016, and was subjected to ten conditions - including that he initially stay at a hostel for newly-released offenders and abide by a curfew - as well as agreeing to further drug testing.
Deakin was one of 50 'high risk' offenders Ms Atkinson's was dealing with at the time, the court was told.
"My case load was excessive - I believe the evidence suggests at times it was 170 per cent capacity," Ms Atkinson said.
The court was told that a senior probation officer had been off sick at the time, meaning other staff had more cases than usual to handle.
Deakin's risk of re-offending was deemed 'very high,' with a 90 per cent chance of him committing another offence within 24 months, the court was told.
Ms Atkinson described a number of 'risk factors' identified by the probation service, which made Deakin susceptible to re-offend or commit serious harm, including his previous convictions and misuse of drugs and alcohol.
"The number of previous convictions and sanctions on record were indicative of someone who was effectively lawless," she told the court.
She described Deakin's behaviour as 'feral' and 'animalistic' and said she felt he had enjoyed the 'reputation' his original offence had given him among his peer group.
Ms Atkinson listed a number of licence breaches on Deakin's record, deemed as 'low risk,' including drug use, driving offences and failure to comply with his curfew.
She admitted she was unaware at the time that Deakin had in fact been testing positive for cocaine, as she was 'not aware' where to look for drug results.
But, by June 2016, police relayed concerns about 'intelligence' that Deakin had been seen carrying weapons and spending time with his co-defendant from his previous offence.
Ms Atkinson said it was at that time that she formed the view that all options had been 'exhausted' and believed he should have been recalled to prison.
"If it was my job to keep the public safe, then Mr Deakin wasn't engaging in any of that," she said.
DeleteThe court heard that for recall to be granted, a case manager's recommendation has to be approved by a senior probation officer, before being signed off by a higher level manager. Ms Atkinson said she sent an email to a senior probation officer highlighting the intelligence from police about Deakin carrying weapons in June 2016, but received no reply.
By that time, Deakin had already received a final warning from the probation service, the court heard.
Ms Atkinson said that after receiving no reply, she emailed a duty senior probation officer, David Rhoden, for advice following ongoing pressure from police about Deakin's case. The email from police raised 'grave' concerns that Deakin was not complying with his licence conditions, the inquest was told.
Mr Rhoden told the court he did not have access to Deakin's records at the time - due to technical problems - but said there was 'no new information to suggest an increased risk or anything that needed to be looked at'.
"Natalia [Atkinson] made it clear she wanted guidance about what to tell police, she didn't give any information about risk or past concerns she has had," he told the court.
In August, Ms Atkinson sent an email to a third senior probation officer, detailing intelligence that Deakin had made threats to a vulnerable young adult, yet still no decision to recall was made, the court heard. "I would have expected some line of management to review his case by this point," she said. "There was nothing further that could practically be done with him. I don't feel we had an other alternative to recall."
Ms Atkinson told the court that she believed in 2016, line managers were held accountable for performance targets, which included the number of recalls.
"In 2016, our arguments for recall were becoming challenged more frequently by management within the Rochdale Borough," she said. "There were a number of problem cases I escalated to managers for support, saying that I felt professionally unsafe. I just felt in some cases where recall should have been supported, it wasn't."
Ms Atkinson told the court that following Deakin's case, she has changed her practise within the probation service. "At that time, on reflection, I think I should have asked for managers to sit down with me and discuss this case," she said.
Speaking at the earlier inquest hearing, Michael’s father Garry Hoolickin, a retired footballer with more than 200 appearances for Oldham Athletic, said: “As a family we want a definite change. We don’t want this to happen to another family. It’s nearly killed myself and my wife. It’s absolutely disgraceful, I think, what’s going on.”
Proceeding.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/flooded-wards-leaking-ceilings-slum-13836192
ReplyDelete