Angela Rayner: her blink rate means her comments about the Labour ‘child sex’ attack advert on Rishi Sunak are not credible.
Angela Rayner is the latest Labour bigwig to come out in support of that vile attack advert that claims Rishi Sunak doesn’t want child sex criminals to go to prison.
Party leader Keir Starmer has said he supported it, after initially saying he had not been informed of it and what it contained. He was a member of the sentencing panel that approved the current guidelines for child sex offences, back in 2012 – so in fact the current situation is more his doing than Sunak’s.
Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves has also spoken up in support.
And now Angela Rayner. But we have a doubt about the wholeheartedness of her comments:
I always watch these things with the sound off first to check out the body language. "Blink. Blink. Blink. Blink-blink. Blink." You know you're lying, Ange. You know you don't want to be saying this. https://t.co/CnvrU0HC5k
I did an article about this after seeing James Cleverly being interviewed on Laura Kuennsberg’s Sunday morning show. Here‘s what I said then (and don’t worry – the relevant part is quite early in the clip):
“The normal blink rate is around 16 times per minutes but Cleverly is going 19 to the dozen, all the way through,” I say on the clip.
“When we’re really interested in something, our blink rate slows down because we’re trying to take in more information – but when we’re stressed or anxious, which is normal if we’re trying to deceive someone, the blink rate goes up.”
Now go back to the Rayner clip, in which she blinks 13 times in 16 seconds.
If she had been in a television studio, she might have had an excuse – because studio lights may be harsh on the eyes. But from the background, it looks as though she was at home or in an office.
So there seems no other explanation for her blink rate but stress.
Is she lying about the advert? Or is she just unhappy to be having to support it? You be the judge.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Keir Starmer has said he stands “by every word” of a Labour attack advert accusing Tory prime minister Rishi Sunak of not wanting child sex criminals to go to prison – but isn’t this hypocritical, as he was on the sentencing council that devised the relevant penalties?
In a widely-reportedDaily Mail article (and doesn’t it speak volumes about how far the Labour leadership has sunk that he is willing to write an article for the paper that once supported the Nazis), he made “absolutely zero apologies” for the advert:
I make absolutely zero apologies for being blunt about this. I stand by every word Labour has said on the subject, no matter how squeamish it might make some feel.
When 4,500 child abusers avoid prison, people don’t want more excuses from politicians: they want answers.
But Keir Starmer was on the sentencing council that set the current guidelines for sex crimes, back in 2012.
At that time, Shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry wrote to him, objecting to a different part of those guidelines – so she was aware that they were passed by Starmer:
On 25th Sept. 2012, Emily Thornberry wrote to Sir Keir Starmer QC chastising him of backsliding on rape prosecutions against the very criminals & rapists Starmer now accuses Sunak of being an ally of. https://t.co/dkPiE5F8c5pic.twitter.com/QNbas07zJn
And all the while, the public outrage against Labour’s position continues to grow, both in the mass media…
.@rachshabi: This "personal attack on Sunak… its completely disgusting, its in the gutter… & its actually suprising and disturbing that Starmer and his team do not see that"
I dont find it surprising or shocking that the Labour right have zero political ethics. pic.twitter.com/WARR52WGOF
Rishi Sunak has many flaws. He’s part of the global wealthy elite who admits to having no working class friends. He does little to clamp down on tax evasion & he won’t tax unearned wealth fairly. He uncapped bankers bonuses & allows energy firms to overcharge you.
And it is leading to hard questions about Starmer’s strategy and the likely end result of his bizarre choices:
Is Sir Kier Starmer the best advert the Conservatives could ever wish for? And if so it has to beg the question, why? What is the reason for having him in the wrong party at the wrong point in history? It wasn't as important to get rid of Corbyn so much as to install him.
This could be the scandal on which Starmer loses not just the local elections next month, but also the next general election.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Keir Starmer: did he really not know about a highly-inflammatory attack advert that went out in the name of his Labour Party?
Do we believe neither Keir Starmer nor Yvette Cooper knew anything about the Labour attack advert accusing Rishi Sunak of opposing prison sentences for sexual assaults against children?
That’s what the Labour leadership wants you to think, it seems:
Asked on Saturday whether Starmer had approved the graphic or knew about it in advance, a Labour source said the leader had not been aware of it and stressed Starmer would not usually be expected to sign off individual campaign materials.
The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, was not informed or consulted… The Observer has been told.
One well-placed party insider said they understood the digital poster was produced as part of a policy push by the shadow justice secretary, Steve Reed, whose team was keen to highlight the way in which too many criminals were receiving community sentences rather than custodial ones.
So it seems if anybody is going to take a fall for this, it’s likely to be Steve Reed. This is reminiscent of all those times Tory leaders have been accused, only to have a subordinate fall on their sword instead – isn’t it?
Bulls**t. He knew. He's too much of a control freak not to, but like the coward he is, he'll blame someone else. https://t.co/maiFd3qTi1
A senior Labour source says: “One of the reasons people react is because they don’t expect it from us, but Braverman’s dog whistle last week was accepted as par for the course?” https://t.co/ocldWO0LNP
But if large numbers of frontbenchers are denying prior knowledge of this one and disowning it, as the Observer article suggests, then I can only concur with former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell’s question:
“If any of this is true… why hasn’t the ad been taken down?”
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Twitter provided “added context” from responses by readers, as follows: “Tweet implies that the PM, Rishi Sunak, doesn’t support prison sentences for sexual assaults against children. The current sentencing guidelines for this crime has a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown… There is no conservative party policy that plans to remove this. conservatives.com/our-plan”
And economist Richard Murphy added the following in an outraged blog article: “Politicians do not sentence criminals, as Keir Starmer should know.
“They do not even bring cases to court, as Keir Starmer should know.
“And the provisions for sending abusers to prison for up to 14 years do exist, and have for a long time, as Keir Starmer should know. If they are not used we have to assume judges do not use them for good reason. As Keir Starmer should know.”
Exploiting abused children to posture as the ‘party of law and order’ is not only disgusting, but also hypocritical: Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions when his department decided not to prosecute notorious serial rapist and abuser Jimmy Savile – and Starmer even went on to say that he thought this had been the right decision (Jimmy Savile: DPP to review 2009 police evidence | Jimmy Savile | The Guardian (archive.org)).
The post was also at least arguably racist, feeding into stereotypes pushed by right-wing extremists such as the so-called ‘Tommy Robinson’ of ‘Asian grooming gangs’ – a stereotype thoroughly disproven this week when 21 white British paedophiles were convicted at Wolverhampton Crown Court – by showing a brown-skinned man next to a claim he doesn’t care about protecting children from sexual assault.
Labour politicians are already being hard-pressed on the issue in media interviews – and their answers are somewhat lacking:
Lucy Powell(Shadow Culture Secretary) – "Over 4,000 adults have escaped custodial sentences when found guilty of child abuse & 16,000 people have escaped custodial sentences for producing/sharing child pornography… & the Prime Minister is responsible for that.. "#KayBurleypic.twitter.com/NVqrLrJ6fQ
It took the Labour Party six months before they started saying that Britain’s first brown Prime Minister ❤️ paedophiles. Six months. They never said anything remotely as bad about Johnson 🤔
Former Labour MP Chris Williamson tweeted: “Under Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership, Labour is now giving lessons on how to swim in the gutter.”
Past iterations of the Labour party were better than this,from the Starmbour party it comes as no surprise whatsoever. A party devoid of answers, a party that will not "win" an election, rather, the CONservatives will lose it. Being the shiniest turd doesn't mean it's not a turd
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush🥀🇵🇸🇾🇪 (@OwenPaintbrush) April 6, 2023
Solma Ahmed tweeted: “I’ve seen many things in politics but this is just beyond belief. Who’s taken over Labour? The nasty party is back.”
Yes, but this time it is not the Conservatives – it’s Labour.
And only weeks ahead of an election, too.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
I can’t start this article in a better way than by quoting Women’s Aid Chief Executive Farah Nazeer, discussing the 36 life imprisonment sentences handed down to former Metropolitan Police officer David Carrick.
She
told the BBC that while the jail term was an “acceptable sentence in a very, very unacceptable situation”, she added that it came 17 years, 12 victims and at least 85 offences too late.
At least 85 offences too late!
Here’s a video report on the sentencing:
How was a man like that allowed to become a police officer?
How was it that complaints about him were ignored?
How many more animals like him are currently wearing police uniforms?
How many Met Police officers are currently under investigation? Isn’t it 800, or thereabouts?
How can we be sure more offenders aren’t being ushered into police ranks, to fill the Tory government’s demand for – what is it? – 20,000 more officers?
So how can we believe any high-ranking policeman who claims their service will now change for the better?
Here’s Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley:
Do you believe his protestations that he will change the service he leads?
And here’s Detective Chief Inspector Iain Moor, an officer at Hertfordshire Police, the force which investigated David Carrick, along with Peter Burt, Senior District Crown Prosecutor for CPS Thames and Chiltern, discussing their part in bringing Carrick to justice.
“He can’t harm them [again] or any other woman.” That’s not true, though. The psychological scars stay with the victims forever, blighting their future lives and relationships.
It has always been the duty of police services around the country to ensure that creatures like Carrick are rooted out before they are ever able to use their privileged positions to cause harm and these police services have failed, time and time again.
They cannot give us any guarantees of good future conduct because their record is so shocking that one would hesitate to discuss it.
They certainly may not even request that we continue to put our trust in them. Trust must be earned.
Am I right?
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
It really is one rule for us and a completely different one for them, isn’t it?
Peterborough Tory MP Paul Bristow is a triple-offender when it comes to speeding in his car – even though he has campaigned for tougher measures against drivers who break speed limits.
But despite this aggravating factor, when he appeared before magistrates for his latest offence, in which he was caught driving at 76mph in a 50mph zone, he was disqualified for only half the maximum amount of time.
So his total sentence was a 28-day disqualification, a ‘Band C’ fine of £667, a victim surcharge of £68 (10 per cent of the fine value, that goes into a pooled fund for victims of crime) and court costs of £110.
He already had six points on his licence for the two previous offences. More would have put him very close to a permanent disqualification.
Put it all together and it really is worth questioning why he got off so lightly.
What sentence would an ordinary member of the public have faced in exactly the same circumstances?
Peterborough MP Paul Bristow was caught out three times in two years, despite campaigning for tougher speeding restrictions
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Charlie Elphicke: his sentence is not proportionate to the anguish he has caused his victims.
Charlie Elphicke is not the alleged “Tory rapist” who’s currently still a member of Parliament although barred from participating in debates.
That matter has yet to be concluded.
But his two-year sentence for sexually assaulting two women reveals several damning truths about the UK’s justice system and how it cushions convictions against the privileged few.
Here’s the story:
Ex-Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke has been jailed for two years for sexually assaulting two women.
Elphicke, 49, the former MP for Dover, was convicted of groping the women in similar situations, nine years apart.
He denied the charges, but was found guilty of one count of sexual assault in 2007 and two further counts in 2016, after a trial at Southwark Crown Court.
The judge told Elphicke he was a “sexual predator who used your success and respectability as a cover”.
Within minutes of his jailing, Elphicke confirmed he would appeal against his conviction, arguing he had not had a “fair trial”.
That’s the official view. Now let’s hand over to people on Twitter who know far more about this subject than I do. Firstly:
This isn't even the alleged #ToryRapist who we are waiting to hear about.
The serious crime rate for Tory MPs and staff is higher than you'd expect from a proper profession. I suspect a wide berth from the police and whips 'managing' just encourages ithttps://t.co/iAJQf9okym
He’s not the #ToryRapist, as stated at the top of this article. But the Conservative whips knew about him.
He is described in the so-called “dodgy dossier” of Conservative MPs with unsavoury sexual histories as: “Charlie Elphicke: inappropriate with female researchers.”
That’s an interesting euphemism to describe a man who had already committed sex crimes against two such researchers by the time the dossier became public knowledge in 2017.
This information should have been enough to put everybody in the Tory whips’ office at the time – along with then-prime minister Theresa May – right in the dock with Elphicke as accessories.
But that didn’t happen because they are above the law.
Breaking: Former Tory MP Charlie Elphicke jailed for 2 years after being convicted of three counts of sexual assault against two women
"You are a sexual predator who used your success and respectability as cover" judge tells him
Yes: he used his success and respectability as a cover – exactly the same success and respectability that keeps his former Parliamentary colleagues from being investigated.
Elphicke himself was given a two-year custodial sentence, meaning he’ll serve 12 months unless he disgraces himself in prison somehow.
And to what kind of prison is he being sent – while he appeals against that sentence?
Charlie Elphicke has been jailed for two years for sexual assault. Watch him get it overturned on appeal or end up in an open prison or it reduced to a fine or community service. The establishment protect its own. The Sun and Mail usually scream for tough sentences so lets see..
You can click on the images for the statements but let’s save you the bother.
According to Prosecutor Eloise Marshall QC, the first victim had a “significantly increased sense of caution” when coming into contact with men, including taxi drivers and butchers.
“The logical part of my brain is telling me to be polite to them but the emotional side is making me stressed.”
[This went] even to the extent that when the (police) officers came to take an account from her, she found it difficult to be alone with them.
She says she avoided being alone with men in general.
The second victim said in her impact statement, “I still remember how he made me feel, I still know those feelings of fear and helplessness.
“I do believe as a result of what happened, it changed how I perceived myself.
“Because of his acts, he stole a large part of my self-worth and self-esteem.
“My inner scars will always be there.”
There is one small element of poetic justice in this story, though: Elphicke voted to restrict the provision of legal aid, and then fell foul of the new restrictions.
At the time, he probably expected the change to affect only poor people, who need legal aid to have access to the justice system; without it, they can’t challenge the privileged few.
He didn’t realise that he was giving away his house as well.
Not to mention his liberty.
But then, it wouldn’t have happened if he could have kept his hands to himself.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Priti Patel and Boris Johnson: They’re telling us they want to restore law and order – but are they simply planning for the effects of a ‘no deal’ Brexit or positioning for a general election?
Boris Johnson has announced a tightening of security in prisons, to go with yesterday’s increase in funding for lawyers to deal with violent crime cases, and a review – and toughening – of prison sentences.
This Writer cannot help but notice that these announcements, along with a plan to build more prisons, are arriving alongside news that the UK’s economy has hit a downturn.
Economic activity fell in the second quarter of 2019 – for the first time since 2012. And unemployment has risen by 31,000.
Is Boris Johnson planning for unrest after a ‘no deal’ Brexit that harms jobs and our way of life?
Well, no. The worst part of this is that he probably isn’t.
The one-off payment of £100 million might help in the short term, but Labour’s shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon has described it as “tinkering at the edges”.
And the Howard League for Penal Reform said prisons have become centres of crime and violence and drugs, and the Tory government need to “pour good money after bad” (provide continuous funding) to solve a problem it has created.
The Crown Prosecution Service will receive £85 million to help it prosecute violent offenders – but the Criminal Bar Association has said that this will not seriously improve a system that has been “severely underfunded” by Conservative governments of the last nine years.
It has led to a situation in which “those who commit crime walk free and the innocent risk being convicted”, the organisation has said.
These claims follow assertions that the promise of 10,000 new prison places will not be enough; courts will order criminals to serve tougher sentences before those places become available, meaning that there will still be too few.
We can only conclude that these announcements do not indicate a serious commitment to tackle crime.
So why make them?
One theory is that the prime minister we call BoJob is trying to discourage people from participating in civil unrest if a ‘no deal’ Brexit takes place on October 31.
The thinking would be that a show of sabre-rattling now might reduce violence later.
But we’re being told that, even with the new funding, the authorities would not be equipped to deal with such unrest. So that plan has backfired.
The alternative – and far more likely – is that these announcements are simply attempts to position the Conservatives as the “Party of Law and Order” once more in the run-up to an autumn election.
The government has denied any intention of calling an election – which of course makes it more likely in the mind of a general public that is used to Tories who say one thing and then do another.
And of course there is a possibility that Mr Johnson will be forced into an election after an early vote of no confidence in his government.
September 9 is the date this is most likely to happen, we’re told – less than a month away.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (right) was appointed as an advisor to Gerard Batten’s UKIP in December 2018, and stood in this year’s EU Parliament elections. He didn’t get a seat.
Anti-Islamist, anti-immigration campaigner Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka ‘Tommy Robinson’) has appealed to Donald Trump to let him flee the UK before being sentenced for contempt of court.
I hope everyone can see the irony in his behaviour.
This is a man who has spoken out against the admission of Muslim refugees into the UK because they may be criminals – terrorists – in disguise.
Now he – a convicted criminal – is seeking refugee status in the United States.
Maybe he can’t see the hypocrisy there, but I hope we all can.
According to the Independent report (see the link below), he said he would be killed if he was jailed because UK prisons are “controlled by jihadi gangs”.
This is a theme that he has been using since 2014, when he told the Oxford Union that Woodhill Prison had become “an ISIS training camp” with radicals “running the wings”.
Many decent UK citizens might be happy to see this man leave and never return.
But the fact is that he committed a crime in the UK and has a penalty to pay.
He is due to appear for sentencing before a judge at the Old Bailey tomorrow (June 11).
It would be a crime if he were allowed to escape from that appointment.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
This woman is not the subject of this article. However, she was sanctioned because she told work programme providers she was 23 weeks pregnant. Does she deserve to die as a result of that decision?
What follows will be shocking to some of you. Outrageous. This writer would find it questionable if it was not.
The story was about a man who had been sanctioned off of his benefit and had to survive without any money for 17 weeks. He was reduced to scavenging in bins for leftovers or out-of-date food, and it was while he was doing this that a rubbish-compacting lorry arrived, picked him up and crushed him to death.
Here’s the response from one Nicholas Blanch on Google+: “I’m going to ask you why he was sanctioned in the first place, because if it was for something he had no control over then that was Wrong with a capital W, worth wholeheartedly condemning, and the government should bear the full weight of responsibility for the end of this man’s life and the corresponding loss to all of us of whatever this man might have contributed directly or indirectly to our lives.
“If, however, the sanction came about through that man’s actions or lack thereof then the responsibility for his situation and its deadly consequence lies with him.”
Take a moment to let that sink in.
In effect, this person conferred the death sentence on any benefit recipient who has been sanctioned by Job Centre Plus according to current DWP rules. Anything that happens to them as a result – including death – is their fault, in his opinion.
Hopefully the sceptics who refused to believe the Chequebook Euthanasia article – because they couldn’t accept that people think in such ways – are hastily reconsidering their position.
What he’s saying is so appalling that he deserves to be named and shamed on this blog.
Mr Blanch continues: “To draw an analogy, if a person gets into a car crash and dies, you want to know the cause of the accident before you assign the blame over the death. You don’t just assume that the problem was the speed limit and demand that it be lowered to make the road safer.”
Okay, let’s look at some real sanctions that have been applied by Job Centre Plus staff – these are from a Vox Political article but there are many more listed on the web.
“You apply for three jobs one week and three jobs the following Sunday and Monday. Because the job centre week starts on a Tuesday it treats this as applying for six jobs in one week and none the following week. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks for failing to apply for three jobs each week.” Does that justify a man’s death?
“You have a job interview which overruns so you arrive at your job centre appointment nine minutes late. You get sanctioned for a month.” Would this have you reaching for the black cap and calling the executioner?
“Your job centre advisor suggests a job. When you go online to apply it says the job has ‘expired’ so you don’t apply. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks.” The death sentence?
“You are on a workfare placement and your job centre appointment comes round. The job centre tells you to sign on then go to your placement – which you do. The placement reports you for being late and you get sanctioned for three months.” And if you die, is that fine?
You apply for all the jobs you can physically attend, but the Job Centre says you should have applied for those that are impossible to get to and from. Should you die for that omission? Alternatively, should you die for failing to attend any job interviews at the locations it is impossible for you to physically attend?
Mr Blanch gets worse: “Also, if any party wants to influence my vote away from the Coalition [note: he supports the Coalition Government, made up of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties] on the strength of this issue, then I want to know what their alternative plans are to ensure that my tax money goes only to people that are on benefits because that’s where they have to be rather than where they choose to be.”
“As poor as this policy is, and as grim as the side-effects are, at least this Coalition Government took steps to try to make sure that all of my tax money goes to that majority of people that are in honest need so that there was a chance that the welfare budget might have been enough for them to have a shot at something approaching decency and dignity in their quality of life rather than forcing them to make the choice to eat or to heat due to the fact that some of my money is wasted on those fortunately few but sadly still-present people who have decided that working the system is preferable to working a job.”
This convoluted and confused sentence takes a bit of unravelling.
Firstly: “This Coalition Government took steps to try to make sure that all of my tax money goes to that majority of people that are in honest need.” No it did not. If you’re talking about all of your tax money, what about the huge amount that goes to the City of London – £103.4 billion a year, despite the fact that there is no need for any subsidy at all? What about the millions that go to work capability assessors and work programme companies, despite the fact that they make no material contribution to a claimant’s needs (work capability assessments may be carried out just as efficiently by a claimant’s doctors, and it has been calculated that claimants are statistically more likely to get a job if they do not take part in the work programme than if they do).
“The welfare budget might have been enough for them to have a shot at something approaching decency and dignity in their quality of life.” No, it would not. The Coalition Government’s benefits squeeze is nothing to do with the number of claimants; it is about ensuring that the unemployed cannot enjoy a decent, dignified quality of life. The aim is to make them desperate for any job, in order to keep wages down. Employers can argue that they don’t need to give anyone a raise because “there are hundreds more out there who’ll do this job for less than you”.
“Some of my money is wasted on those fortunately few but sadly still-present people who have decided that working the system is preferable to working a job.” Such people comprise roughly 0.7 per cent of benefit claimants – a figure that has not changed since before the Coalition Government came into office, no matter what measures Iain Duncan Smith has forced on them. It is such a small proportion of the claimant population that any action by the Coalition Government to tackle it is hugely disproportionate to the threat it represents – initiatives to stop the fraud are more harmful than the fraud itself.
All of this information is freely available to anybody with a modicum of curiosity – you only have to go and look.
That is why Nicholas Blanch’s comment is not only shocking and outrageous; it is also disgracefully ignorant.
So no, Mr Blanch, there is no point in seeking to influence your vote away from the Coalition parties.
With attitudes like yours, nobody else would want it.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
