British-born Tim Hall refused benefits due to new immigration rules

York man Tim Hall, 26, has been refused JobSeekers’ Allowance because he is not considered an habitual UK resident

York man Tim Hall, 26, has been refused JobSeekers’ Allowance because he is not considered an habitual UK resident

First published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Chief reporter

A BUDDING filmmaker who has lived in York almost all his life has been refused JobSeekers’ Allowance – because he is not considered an habitual UK resident.

British-born Tim Hall has been hit by new rules aimed at preventing EU migrants from taking advantage of the benefits system.

Mr Hall, 26, of Green Lane, Acomb, went on a four-month internship to Brussels last autumn to build on his skills and improve his career prospects, he said.

When he returned, he was out of work and applied for JSA, only to be told by Jobcentreplus he was not entitled to it.

An official said in a letter: “This is because we have decided that, for benefit purposes only, you’re not considered to be habitually resident in the UK.”

The letter went on to say that as an ‘EEA national,’ his right to reside as a JobSeeker would be limited to six months unless he could provide evidence he was continuing to seek work and had a genuine chance of work.

Mr Hall said he was shocked by the letter and had appealed, but had heard nothing yet.

Mr Hall said: “I couldn’t believe it. I went to Brussels thinking it would eventually help me find work back in the UK but now I seem to have been penalised for doing this.

“Fortunately, I live at home with my mother and she will ensure I can eat and get by, but what would I be meant to do if I was living on my own?”

The Leeds Metropolitan University film-making graduate worked in the Belgian capital for the Leonardo Mobility Programme, which is funded by the EU Commission.

It aims to give participants an understanding of sustainability-related projects while also developing their employability skills and helping them gain experience abroad.

Mr Hall said he wondered whether he had been caught up in a new Government drive to prevent EU migrants coming to the UK and immediately claiming benefits, and this was confirmed by the Department for Work and Pensions.

A spokesman said it was “absolutely right” that strict rules were in place to protect the British benefits system and make sure it was not abused.

“As has always been the case, anyone who chooses to live in another country for a long period of time and so isn’t contributing in Britain must, if they return to the UK and want to claim benefits, prove that they have strong ties to this country in order to pass the Habitual Residence Test,” he said.

“The new rules, which came into force on January 1, mean that someone has to be living in this country for three months before they can take the Habitual Residence Test.

“The rules apply to migrants from all EEA countries coming here to look for work, including British nationals returning to the UK after a period living abroad.”

York Central MP Hugh Bayley said Mr Hall’s case was the second of that nature he had been made aware of.

He said: “I have spoken to Steve Webb [minister for the DWP] to warn him that these new regulations will hit as many British people as foreigners. He has said he will look at it, but I have not heard back from him.

"The Government seems more interested in stopping people’s entitlement to benefits, because that makes unemployment figures look lower, than in trying to operate a fair system that supports people who have paid National Insurance for years, if and when they become unemployed.”

Comments (51)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:26am Fri 14 Feb 14

asd says...

Why do you think the jobless figures go down. Every Goverment massage the figures this is an example of how they achieve this. Of course this man is a Johny foreigner..... shows how much this coalition is a joke.
Why do you think the jobless figures go down. Every Goverment massage the figures this is an example of how they achieve this. Of course this man is a Johny foreigner..... shows how much this coalition is a joke. asd
  • Score: 37

10:37am Fri 14 Feb 14

Woody G Mellor says...

Hmmmm. He doesn't look like an habitual UK resident to me. I can see it in his eyes.
Hmmmm. He doesn't look like an habitual UK resident to me. I can see it in his eyes. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: -15

1:00pm Fri 14 Feb 14

yorkonafork says...

Good luck to Tim. Absolutely ridiculous situation. He literally has been punished for trying to further his skilled and career chances whereas if he'd just stayed at home on his arse he'd be ok.
Good luck to Tim. Absolutely ridiculous situation. He literally has been punished for trying to further his skilled and career chances whereas if he'd just stayed at home on his arse he'd be ok. yorkonafork
  • Score: 57

1:18pm Fri 14 Feb 14

TheTruthHurts says...

Yeah, he looks a bit shifty to me too. I mean born in Britain, lives in Britain........ Theres just no way he is British :-)

And thanks should go to Hugh Bayley for all his hard work and efforts in this case,
He said: “I have spoken to Steve Webb to warn him that these new regulations will hit as many British people as foreigners. He has said he will look at it, but I have not heard back from him.
good effort Hugh!
Yeah, he looks a bit shifty to me too. I mean born in Britain, lives in Britain........ Theres just no way he is British :-) And thanks should go to Hugh Bayley for all his hard work and efforts in this case, [quote] He said: “I have spoken to Steve Webb [minister for the DWP] to warn him that these new regulations will hit as many British people as foreigners. He has said he will look at it, but I have not heard back from him. [/quote] good effort Hugh! TheTruthHurts
  • Score: -11

1:20pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

good.. get a job.
good.. get a job. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -54

1:32pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Proudlock says...

So this guy gets paid our taxes to make films for his own enjoyment rather than get a job and work for a living? Get a menial job to pay the bills like the rest of us do.
So this guy gets paid our taxes to make films for his own enjoyment rather than get a job and work for a living? Get a menial job to pay the bills like the rest of us do. Proudlock
  • Score: -45

1:32pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Will this apply to MEP's who spend "long periods" abroad?
Will this apply to MEP's who spend "long periods" abroad? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 51

1:33pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ReginaldBiscuit says...

asd wrote:
Why do you think the jobless figures go down. Every Goverment massage the figures this is an example of how they achieve this. Of course this man is a Johny foreigner..... shows how much this coalition is a joke.
Indeed. The figures are distorted. Same as the police blow off about reported crime figures, they never produce any information about crimes that aren't reported or the police fail to follow through.

It's just another example of the poor and desperate being picked on by the current government whilst the banks and bankers are allowed to continue their devious and rotten practices. The banks (and the media) in this country have too much power.

I wouldn't worry about the Coalition though. Since posh Dave took over, membership of the tory party has dropped to 134,000 from 250,000. UKIP is taking chunks of their support. Moderate conservatism is dead. Radical right-wing ideology is on the rise. I fully expect to see the Lib-Dems blown away at the next general election. Be interesting to see what emerges.

There should be a ministry for common sense and quite clearly, this lad should be entitled to his paltry amount from the government.
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Why do you think the jobless figures go down. Every Goverment massage the figures this is an example of how they achieve this. Of course this man is a Johny foreigner..... shows how much this coalition is a joke.[/p][/quote]Indeed. The figures are distorted. Same as the police blow off about reported crime figures, they never produce any information about crimes that aren't reported or the police fail to follow through. It's just another example of the poor and desperate being picked on by the current government whilst the banks and bankers are allowed to continue their devious and rotten practices. The banks (and the media) in this country have too much power. I wouldn't worry about the Coalition though. Since posh Dave took over, membership of the tory party has dropped to 134,000 from 250,000. UKIP is taking chunks of their support. Moderate conservatism is dead. Radical right-wing ideology is on the rise. I fully expect to see the Lib-Dems blown away at the next general election. Be interesting to see what emerges. There should be a ministry for common sense and quite clearly, this lad should be entitled to his paltry amount from the government. ReginaldBiscuit
  • Score: 25

1:38pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Ichabod76 says...

asd wrote:
Why do you think the jobless figures go down. Every Goverment massage the figures this is an example of how they achieve this. Of course this man is a Johny foreigner..... shows how much this coalition is a joke.
What if he was working abroad and claiming benefits here ?
would that be fair ?
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Why do you think the jobless figures go down. Every Goverment massage the figures this is an example of how they achieve this. Of course this man is a Johny foreigner..... shows how much this coalition is a joke.[/p][/quote]What if he was working abroad and claiming benefits here ? would that be fair ? Ichabod76
  • Score: -8

1:38pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Ichabod76 says...

asd wrote:
Why do you think the jobless figures go down. Every Goverment massage the figures this is an example of how they achieve this. Of course this man is a Johny foreigner..... shows how much this coalition is a joke.
What if he was working abroad and claiming benefits here ?
would that be fair ?
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Why do you think the jobless figures go down. Every Goverment massage the figures this is an example of how they achieve this. Of course this man is a Johny foreigner..... shows how much this coalition is a joke.[/p][/quote]What if he was working abroad and claiming benefits here ? would that be fair ? Ichabod76
  • Score: -8

1:56pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Chasing Clicks says...

Some of these comments are pathetic! He's tried to better himself to be able to get a job? There really isn't many jobs out there now so at least he's trying. - True words , "The Government seems more interested in stopping people’s entitlement to benefits, because that makes unemployment figures look lower, than in trying to operate a fair system that supports people who have paid National Insurance for years, if and when they become unemployed.”
Some of these comments are pathetic! He's tried to better himself to be able to get a job? There really isn't many jobs out there now so at least he's trying. - True words , "The Government seems more interested in stopping people’s entitlement to benefits, because that makes unemployment figures look lower, than in trying to operate a fair system that supports people who have paid National Insurance for years, if and when they become unemployed.” Chasing Clicks
  • Score: 41

2:03pm Fri 14 Feb 14

HeworthM says...

This is a very unfortunate situation for Mr Hall, a wider question is regarding an individuals "right" to voluntarily come in and out of the unemployment benefit system, and an attitude towards waiting for a specific job opportunity to come along.
I applaud Mr Hall for taking the internship (not clear whether paid or unpaid) to gain experience in his desired sector and for this he can not be criticised.
However, there are many children who dream of being an astronaut. As a country can we afford to have people claiming unemployment benefit because such an ideal job has not yet come along, or do these people have a reality check and take alternative employment?
This is a very unfortunate situation for Mr Hall, a wider question is regarding an individuals "right" to voluntarily come in and out of the unemployment benefit system, and an attitude towards waiting for a specific job opportunity to come along. I applaud Mr Hall for taking the internship (not clear whether paid or unpaid) to gain experience in his desired sector and for this he can not be criticised. However, there are many children who dream of being an astronaut. As a country can we afford to have people claiming unemployment benefit because such an ideal job has not yet come along, or do these people have a reality check and take alternative employment? HeworthM
  • Score: 24

2:20pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Mandak says...

I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?
I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself? Mandak
  • Score: -24

2:29pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Trimwise says...

Proudlock wrote:
So this guy gets paid our taxes to make films for his own enjoyment rather than get a job and work for a living? Get a menial job to pay the bills like the rest of us do.
No you imbecile I don't get any of your taxes. I got paid by the EU to go on that Internship. If you were clever enough to read the whole article you would have seen this. I am also applying for any menial work at the moment but just because you don't have any aspirations or ambitions in life doesn't mean other people can't. You sad sad man
[quote][p][bold]Proudlock[/bold] wrote: So this guy gets paid our taxes to make films for his own enjoyment rather than get a job and work for a living? Get a menial job to pay the bills like the rest of us do.[/p][/quote]No you imbecile I don't get any of your taxes. I got paid by the EU to go on that Internship. If you were clever enough to read the whole article you would have seen this. I am also applying for any menial work at the moment but just because you don't have any aspirations or ambitions in life doesn't mean other people can't. You sad sad man Trimwise
  • Score: 50

2:30pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Trimwise says...

Woody G Mellor wrote:
Hmmmm. He doesn't look like an habitual UK resident to me. I can see it in his eyes.
That's the look of British bemusement mate! This government drives a man craaaaazy! Haha
[quote][p][bold]Woody G Mellor[/bold] wrote: Hmmmm. He doesn't look like an habitual UK resident to me. I can see it in his eyes.[/p][/quote]That's the look of British bemusement mate! This government drives a man craaaaazy! Haha Trimwise
  • Score: 16

2:32pm Fri 14 Feb 14

yorkonafork says...

To be fair, no one's saying he isn't looking for a medial job. From what I can see he's just not been allowed JSA because he's chosen to try and follow his ideal job. Nothing wrong with that.
If he comes back and says I want benefit unless I'm working in the film industry then fair enough but it's not been mentioned at all that way. Chances are he's still after a PT job to get paid and progress his film making. But until that comes along what can he do?
To be fair, no one's saying he isn't looking for a medial job. From what I can see he's just not been allowed JSA because he's chosen to try and follow his ideal job. Nothing wrong with that. If he comes back and says I want benefit unless I'm working in the film industry then fair enough but it's not been mentioned at all that way. Chances are he's still after a PT job to get paid and progress his film making. But until that comes along what can he do? yorkonafork
  • Score: 28

2:35pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Trimwise says...

Mandak wrote:
I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?
Eh hem, I would like to clarify that I am currently applying for loads of menial jobs like a lot of people. I easily applied for more than what Job seekers require and showed them my applications on Universal Job match. I hope this has cleared up your incorrect assumptions that I'm a totally lazy bugger.

respectfully yours, Tim Hall.
[quote][p][bold]Mandak[/bold] wrote: I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?[/p][/quote]Eh hem, I would like to clarify that I am currently applying for loads of menial jobs like a lot of people. I easily applied for more than what Job seekers require and showed them my applications on Universal Job match. I hope this has cleared up your incorrect assumptions that I'm a totally lazy bugger. respectfully yours, Tim Hall. Trimwise
  • Score: 47

2:35pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Thecynic says...

Dear Mr Hall, for almost all my life throughout the hardships of the sixties and seventies, when things looked pretty bleak I can tell you, I always remained fiercely proud to be British.
This last 3 or 4 Years though have brought home realizations that this Country is now on it's knees and that those in Parliament must exist in some sort of bubble. Either that or they seem to think that the average guy in the street has a below average IQ.

Why do I think this? Only the other night on 'the One Show' Eric Pickles said, and I quote, 'This is a very rich Country', - Really?
We are almost £1.2trillion in debt, - and we are rich?
No, the fact that the Government picks on the most vulnerable and sick in our society, surely paves the way to a belief that things must indeed be desperate in Whitehall.

While I have no doubt at all that if you appeal, you will win that appeal and get what you are entitled to. But I think the question is, should you bother to appeal?

I would suggest to you, the same as I have suggested to other friends and family members who are below 30ish years old.
Cut your ties with this Country, it is finished now, and no Government could ever restore it back to the glory days, it is finished in more ways than just financial, the fabric has been ripped out from society, carefully engineered by Governments so that now we have working class against working class. Infrastructure here is failing, (not just because of the recent storms)
Mr Hall I would suggest that you take your skills abroad, you will be treat a lot more sympathetically and with a great deal more fairness than you ever will in this country. Give your 'new' Country the benefit of your skills and let them reap the benefits of your success.
Dear Mr Hall, for almost all my life throughout the hardships of the sixties and seventies, when things looked pretty bleak I can tell you, I always remained fiercely proud to be British. This last 3 or 4 Years though have brought home realizations that this Country is now on it's knees and that those in Parliament must exist in some sort of bubble. Either that or they seem to think that the average guy in the street has a below average IQ. Why do I think this? Only the other night on 'the One Show' Eric Pickles said, and I quote, 'This is a very rich Country', - Really? We are almost £1.2trillion in debt, - and we are rich? No, the fact that the Government picks on the most vulnerable and sick in our society, surely paves the way to a belief that things must indeed be desperate in Whitehall. While I have no doubt at all that if you appeal, you will win that appeal and get what you are entitled to. But I think the question is, should you bother to appeal? I would suggest to you, the same as I have suggested to other friends and family members who are below 30ish years old. Cut your ties with this Country, it is finished now, and no Government could ever restore it back to the glory days, it is finished in more ways than just financial, the fabric has been ripped out from society, carefully engineered by Governments so that now we have working class against working class. Infrastructure here is failing, (not just because of the recent storms) Mr Hall I would suggest that you take your skills abroad, you will be treat a lot more sympathetically and with a great deal more fairness than you ever will in this country. Give your 'new' Country the benefit of your skills and let them reap the benefits of your success. Thecynic
  • Score: -8

2:36pm Fri 14 Feb 14

yorkonafork says...

Trimwise wrote:
Proudlock wrote:
So this guy gets paid our taxes to make films for his own enjoyment rather than get a job and work for a living? Get a menial job to pay the bills like the rest of us do.
No you imbecile I don't get any of your taxes. I got paid by the EU to go on that Internship. If you were clever enough to read the whole article you would have seen this. I am also applying for any menial work at the moment but just because you don't have any aspirations or ambitions in life doesn't mean other people can't. You sad sad man
Well said Sir!

I especially like the very uneducated comment that film must simply be for ones own pleasure. One think this person doesn't get out much and doesn't realise how many forms filmography will appear in in business, politics and entrainment as a very important job
[quote][p][bold]Trimwise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proudlock[/bold] wrote: So this guy gets paid our taxes to make films for his own enjoyment rather than get a job and work for a living? Get a menial job to pay the bills like the rest of us do.[/p][/quote]No you imbecile I don't get any of your taxes. I got paid by the EU to go on that Internship. If you were clever enough to read the whole article you would have seen this. I am also applying for any menial work at the moment but just because you don't have any aspirations or ambitions in life doesn't mean other people can't. You sad sad man[/p][/quote]Well said Sir! I especially like the very uneducated comment that film must simply be for ones own pleasure. One think this person doesn't get out much and doesn't realise how many forms filmography will appear in in business, politics and entrainment as a very important job yorkonafork
  • Score: 28

2:36pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Trimwise says...

yorkonafork wrote:
To be fair, no one's saying he isn't looking for a medial job. From what I can see he's just not been allowed JSA because he's chosen to try and follow his ideal job. Nothing wrong with that.
If he comes back and says I want benefit unless I'm working in the film industry then fair enough but it's not been mentioned at all that way. Chances are he's still after a PT job to get paid and progress his film making. But until that comes along what can he do?
Exactly mate, cheers!
[quote][p][bold]yorkonafork[/bold] wrote: To be fair, no one's saying he isn't looking for a medial job. From what I can see he's just not been allowed JSA because he's chosen to try and follow his ideal job. Nothing wrong with that. If he comes back and says I want benefit unless I'm working in the film industry then fair enough but it's not been mentioned at all that way. Chances are he's still after a PT job to get paid and progress his film making. But until that comes along what can he do?[/p][/quote]Exactly mate, cheers! Trimwise
  • Score: 18

2:37pm Fri 14 Feb 14

yorkonafork says...

My spelling is terrible today...I'll blame the laptop keyboard! Apologies.
My spelling is terrible today...I'll blame the laptop keyboard! Apologies. yorkonafork
  • Score: 2

2:55pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Trimwise says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
good.. get a job.
trying Archie
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: good.. get a job.[/p][/quote]trying Archie Trimwise
  • Score: 13

3:17pm Fri 14 Feb 14

wildthing666 says...

The new Nazi coalition are nastier than anything that has gone before them. There is no way Labour will overturn this if they win power in 2015. they are the same just under different colours.
The new Nazi coalition are nastier than anything that has gone before them. There is no way Labour will overturn this if they win power in 2015. they are the same just under different colours. wildthing666
  • Score: -4

3:25pm Fri 14 Feb 14

HeworthM says...

My previous comment regarding realistic career expectations was a generic comment regarding ideal jobs versus the realism of the jobs market, and not specific to Mr Hill.
I applaud Mr Hills family for supporting him as they are doing, and Mr Hill himself for staying at home while during a time of unemployment and seeking minimal state support.
Interesting that you are viewing jobs you are applying for as menial. With the right approach I believe that all jobs can be rewarding and a positive experience on which to build and develop. As someone involved in recruiting staff, you can teach technical skills and processes needed for a job, so you recruit as much based on the applicants attitude towards the opportunity as their existing skills.
My previous comment regarding realistic career expectations was a generic comment regarding ideal jobs versus the realism of the jobs market, and not specific to Mr Hill. I applaud Mr Hills family for supporting him as they are doing, and Mr Hill himself for staying at home while during a time of unemployment and seeking minimal state support. Interesting that you are viewing jobs you are applying for as menial. With the right approach I believe that all jobs can be rewarding and a positive experience on which to build and develop. As someone involved in recruiting staff, you can teach technical skills and processes needed for a job, so you recruit as much based on the applicants attitude towards the opportunity as their existing skills. HeworthM
  • Score: 3

3:44pm Fri 14 Feb 14

mmarshal says...

This puts me in mind of when I was in HM Forces serving in Germany and my son applied for a university grant. He was turned down as I was not classed as a UK resident as I had been out of the UK for more than 3 years.
I wrote to Maggie Thatcher and explained that I was paying council tax on my home and UK income tax on my Forces pay. I asked if that meant I no longer had to pay UK income tax on my Forces pay. I got a response to the effect that I was considered a UK resident for tax purposes but she could not intervene on education grants as that was a matter for local education authorities.
It's sometimes difficult to work out the logic when asking for government money.
This puts me in mind of when I was in HM Forces serving in Germany and my son applied for a university grant. He was turned down as I was not classed as a UK resident as I had been out of the UK for more than 3 years. I wrote to Maggie Thatcher and explained that I was paying council tax on my home and UK income tax on my Forces pay. I asked if that meant I no longer had to pay UK income tax on my Forces pay. I got a response to the effect that I was considered a UK resident for tax purposes but she could not intervene on education grants as that was a matter for local education authorities. It's sometimes difficult to work out the logic when asking for government money. mmarshal
  • Score: 26

3:56pm Fri 14 Feb 14

SRT_CM says...

Mandak wrote:
I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?
Were you trained as a writer or painter? If not, then moving into those fields may well be a "pipe dream" or "ideal" job, as something you just fancy doing for a living.

But if you read the article, he was trained as a film-maker. That is his 'trade', why is it inappropriate for him to now want to work in this field professionally?

But that's not really the point of the article, is it? The point is, someone who was born and has lived in the UK is being denied jobseeker's allowance because he was on an internship in Brussels for a few months.

Quoting the DWP, “As has always been the case, anyone who chooses to live in another country for a long period of time and so isn’t contributing in Britain must, if they return to the UK and want to claim benefits, prove that they have strong ties to this country in order to pass the Habitual Residence Test,” – does any of this sound like it applies to Mr. Hall?

Live in another country for a long period of time?

No.

Strong ties to the country?

Born and resident here all his life, can't really have stronger ties than that I'd have thought!
[quote][p][bold]Mandak[/bold] wrote: I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?[/p][/quote]Were you trained as a writer or painter? If not, then moving into those fields may well be a "pipe dream" or "ideal" job, as something you just fancy doing for a living. But if you read the article, he was trained as a film-maker. That is his 'trade', why is it inappropriate for him to now want to work in this field professionally? But that's not really the point of the article, is it? The point is, someone who was born and has lived in the UK is being denied jobseeker's allowance because he was on an internship in Brussels for a few months. Quoting the DWP, “As has always been the case, anyone who chooses to live in another country for a long period of time and so isn’t contributing in Britain must, if they return to the UK and want to claim benefits, prove that they have strong ties to this country in order to pass the Habitual Residence Test,” – does any of this sound like it applies to Mr. Hall? Live in another country for a long period of time? No. Strong ties to the country? Born and resident here all his life, can't really have stronger ties than that I'd have thought! SRT_CM
  • Score: 20

4:22pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
asd wrote:
Why do you think the jobless figures go down. Every Goverment massage the figures this is an example of how they achieve this. Of course this man is a Johny foreigner..... shows how much this coalition is a joke.
What if he was working abroad and claiming benefits here ?
would that be fair ?
No that wouldn't be fair. If he was dead and claiming benefits that wouldn't be fair either. Since he is doing neither of these things, what point are you trying to make?
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Why do you think the jobless figures go down. Every Goverment massage the figures this is an example of how they achieve this. Of course this man is a Johny foreigner..... shows how much this coalition is a joke.[/p][/quote]What if he was working abroad and claiming benefits here ? would that be fair ?[/p][/quote]No that wouldn't be fair. If he was dead and claiming benefits that wouldn't be fair either. Since he is doing neither of these things, what point are you trying to make? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 11

4:51pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Shouter says...

He would probably have had more rights if he had sneaked into Britain hidden in the back of a lorry!
He would probably have had more rights if he had sneaked into Britain hidden in the back of a lorry! Shouter
  • Score: -23

5:06pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Silver says...

Having been on the dole last year I can only wish you the best Tim and think it's an act of lunacy of the JSA system as they're incredibly badly run and hope you get to fix the system and get a job soon as it's not pleasant to be in that situation.
Having been on the dole last year I can only wish you the best Tim and think it's an act of lunacy of the JSA system as they're incredibly badly run and hope you get to fix the system and get a job soon as it's not pleasant to be in that situation. Silver
  • Score: 20

7:03pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Mandak says...

Trimwise wrote:
Mandak wrote:
I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?
Eh hem, I would like to clarify that I am currently applying for loads of menial jobs like a lot of people. I easily applied for more than what Job seekers require and showed them my applications on Universal Job match. I hope this has cleared up your incorrect assumptions that I'm a totally lazy bugger.

respectfully yours, Tim Hall.
Fair enough then, Tim Hall. Good on you for looking for work. But pursuing a dream in this manner means taking risks sometimes without the safety net of benefits at the end. If you voluntarily leave a paid job to train or you leave benefits to sign on for an internship (uk based or abroad) to upskill in a certain area of expertise, at the end of the course/internship you are not always entitled to benefits just because it has finished. Same as you are not always entitled to benefits during a course or internship if it is unpaid. If you were working abroad and especially if you were being paid and out of the country for 4 months, I'm not surprised you're not eligible for benefits on your return as you were technically living and working abroad. You were pursuing a life outside the UK which you are perfectly entitled to do. You weren't made redundant in the UK, you didn't lose your job in the UK through no fault of your own - you took a risk on an internship abroad which I would suspect you hoped would lead to other things/contacts, maybe a permanent position. I did something similar a while back, left a paid job for a great course, thoroughly enjoyed it, but I wasn't entitled to benefits at the end, I wouldn't have been eligible for 3 months. I had to find a job or live off savings. A friend of mine on the same course made a fantastic contact and took a permanent position abroad as a result of the course. Sometimes it pans out sometimes it doesn't, but choosing to chase a dream carries those risks, you're not entitled to benefits because it didn't turn out the way you expected. That was the point I was making, never said you were a lazy bugger, I'm sure you're not.
[quote][p][bold]Trimwise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandak[/bold] wrote: I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?[/p][/quote]Eh hem, I would like to clarify that I am currently applying for loads of menial jobs like a lot of people. I easily applied for more than what Job seekers require and showed them my applications on Universal Job match. I hope this has cleared up your incorrect assumptions that I'm a totally lazy bugger. respectfully yours, Tim Hall.[/p][/quote]Fair enough then, Tim Hall. Good on you for looking for work. But pursuing a dream in this manner means taking risks sometimes without the safety net of benefits at the end. If you voluntarily leave a paid job to train or you leave benefits to sign on for an internship (uk based or abroad) to upskill in a certain area of expertise, at the end of the course/internship you are not always entitled to benefits just because it has finished. Same as you are not always entitled to benefits during a course or internship if it is unpaid. If you were working abroad and especially if you were being paid and out of the country for 4 months, I'm not surprised you're not eligible for benefits on your return as you were technically living and working abroad. You were pursuing a life outside the UK which you are perfectly entitled to do. You weren't made redundant in the UK, you didn't lose your job in the UK through no fault of your own - you took a risk on an internship abroad which I would suspect you hoped would lead to other things/contacts, maybe a permanent position. I did something similar a while back, left a paid job for a great course, thoroughly enjoyed it, but I wasn't entitled to benefits at the end, I wouldn't have been eligible for 3 months. I had to find a job or live off savings. A friend of mine on the same course made a fantastic contact and took a permanent position abroad as a result of the course. Sometimes it pans out sometimes it doesn't, but choosing to chase a dream carries those risks, you're not entitled to benefits because it didn't turn out the way you expected. That was the point I was making, never said you were a lazy bugger, I'm sure you're not. Mandak
  • Score: -1

7:42pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Trimwise says...

Mandak wrote:
Trimwise wrote:
Mandak wrote:
I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?
Eh hem, I would like to clarify that I am currently applying for loads of menial jobs like a lot of people. I easily applied for more than what Job seekers require and showed them my applications on Universal Job match. I hope this has cleared up your incorrect assumptions that I'm a totally lazy bugger.

respectfully yours, Tim Hall.
Fair enough then, Tim Hall. Good on you for looking for work. But pursuing a dream in this manner means taking risks sometimes without the safety net of benefits at the end. If you voluntarily leave a paid job to train or you leave benefits to sign on for an internship (uk based or abroad) to upskill in a certain area of expertise, at the end of the course/internship you are not always entitled to benefits just because it has finished. Same as you are not always entitled to benefits during a course or internship if it is unpaid. If you were working abroad and especially if you were being paid and out of the country for 4 months, I'm not surprised you're not eligible for benefits on your return as you were technically living and working abroad. You were pursuing a life outside the UK which you are perfectly entitled to do. You weren't made redundant in the UK, you didn't lose your job in the UK through no fault of your own - you took a risk on an internship abroad which I would suspect you hoped would lead to other things/contacts, maybe a permanent position. I did something similar a while back, left a paid job for a great course, thoroughly enjoyed it, but I wasn't entitled to benefits at the end, I wouldn't have been eligible for 3 months. I had to find a job or live off savings. A friend of mine on the same course made a fantastic contact and took a permanent position abroad as a result of the course. Sometimes it pans out sometimes it doesn't, but choosing to chase a dream carries those risks, you're not entitled to benefits because it didn't turn out the way you expected. That was the point I was making, never said you were a lazy bugger, I'm sure you're not.
Indeed the main reason for going on the internship was to improve my employ-ability either in UK(ideally) or abroad in my desired skill-set. However if one can't get the job one so desires you must try to get any old job to "pay the bills" as you put it. In the current jobs climate, depending on where you live, this isn't always that easy. I just wonder what I would be supposed to do to survive if I wasn't fortunate enough to be living with my mum. In that 3 month period before they even assess the claimant they could be starving or homeless. How's someone, be it a UK national like me or even an EU migrant, supposed to get work if you don't have somewhere to live. It's absurd they want to treat EU nationals like this let alone UK nationals. The government just wants to manipulate employment statistics and pay as few people as possible in the process. It's a disgrace to humanity in my opinion! Glad to debate this btw Mandak. I know you didn't literally call me a lazy bugger but you did imply that I wasn't interested in work unless it was what I wanted which isn;t true. I'll take pretty much anything atm.

Cheers!
[quote][p][bold]Mandak[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trimwise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandak[/bold] wrote: I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?[/p][/quote]Eh hem, I would like to clarify that I am currently applying for loads of menial jobs like a lot of people. I easily applied for more than what Job seekers require and showed them my applications on Universal Job match. I hope this has cleared up your incorrect assumptions that I'm a totally lazy bugger. respectfully yours, Tim Hall.[/p][/quote]Fair enough then, Tim Hall. Good on you for looking for work. But pursuing a dream in this manner means taking risks sometimes without the safety net of benefits at the end. If you voluntarily leave a paid job to train or you leave benefits to sign on for an internship (uk based or abroad) to upskill in a certain area of expertise, at the end of the course/internship you are not always entitled to benefits just because it has finished. Same as you are not always entitled to benefits during a course or internship if it is unpaid. If you were working abroad and especially if you were being paid and out of the country for 4 months, I'm not surprised you're not eligible for benefits on your return as you were technically living and working abroad. You were pursuing a life outside the UK which you are perfectly entitled to do. You weren't made redundant in the UK, you didn't lose your job in the UK through no fault of your own - you took a risk on an internship abroad which I would suspect you hoped would lead to other things/contacts, maybe a permanent position. I did something similar a while back, left a paid job for a great course, thoroughly enjoyed it, but I wasn't entitled to benefits at the end, I wouldn't have been eligible for 3 months. I had to find a job or live off savings. A friend of mine on the same course made a fantastic contact and took a permanent position abroad as a result of the course. Sometimes it pans out sometimes it doesn't, but choosing to chase a dream carries those risks, you're not entitled to benefits because it didn't turn out the way you expected. That was the point I was making, never said you were a lazy bugger, I'm sure you're not.[/p][/quote]Indeed the main reason for going on the internship was to improve my employ-ability either in UK(ideally) or abroad in my desired skill-set. However if one can't get the job one so desires you must try to get any old job to "pay the bills" as you put it. In the current jobs climate, depending on where you live, this isn't always that easy. I just wonder what I would be supposed to do to survive if I wasn't fortunate enough to be living with my mum. In that 3 month period before they even assess the claimant they could be starving or homeless. How's someone, be it a UK national like me or even an EU migrant, supposed to get work if you don't have somewhere to live. It's absurd they want to treat EU nationals like this let alone UK nationals. The government just wants to manipulate employment statistics and pay as few people as possible in the process. It's a disgrace to humanity in my opinion! Glad to debate this btw Mandak. I know you didn't literally call me a lazy bugger but you did imply that I wasn't interested in work unless it was what I wanted which isn;t true. I'll take pretty much anything atm. Cheers! Trimwise
  • Score: 15

7:45pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Mandak says...

SRT_CM wrote:
Mandak wrote:
I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?
Were you trained as a writer or painter? If not, then moving into those fields may well be a "pipe dream" or "ideal" job, as something you just fancy doing for a living.

But if you read the article, he was trained as a film-maker. That is his 'trade', why is it inappropriate for him to now want to work in this field professionally?

But that's not really the point of the article, is it? The point is, someone who was born and has lived in the UK is being denied jobseeker's allowance because he was on an internship in Brussels for a few months.

Quoting the DWP, “As has always been the case, anyone who chooses to live in another country for a long period of time and so isn’t contributing in Britain must, if they return to the UK and want to claim benefits, prove that they have strong ties to this country in order to pass the Habitual Residence Test,” – does any of this sound like it applies to Mr. Hall?

Live in another country for a long period of time?

No.

Strong ties to the country?

Born and resident here all his life, can't really have stronger ties than that I'd have thought!
Yep, trained as both writer and painter. Both tricky careers to pursue and I don't expect an 'easy ride'. They are my chosen 'professions' as it were and I carry the qualifications for both. But both pursuits are very subjective and a qualification doesn't necessarily mean you'll get where you want to be. Never said it was inappropriate for him to want to work in his chosen field, surely everyone has a dream job they want!? I'd love to concentrate solely on my chosen fields. Those lucky enough to be in theirs must thank their lucky stars. But why should you be automatically entitled to benefits just because your course/internship, whatever you pursued, didn't pan out as expected? He lived abroad for 4 months working on an internship most likely in the hope it would lead to something else and got paid to do it. That's a job with an end date. It's no different to a job covering say maternity leave. The applicant is aware its a job with a limited timescale and they need to forward plan for the end of the role while maybe hoping they keep you on. He was away for a third of a year, it's a significant amount of time. Playing devils advocate, but what's to stop anyone from applying for a similar internship, having it finish, coming home to the UK for six months to claim benefits and then apply for a similar course and go off again to work abroad? DWP want the claimant to prove he is making a life here for the foreseeable future and intends to contribute to the economy through gainful employment. What's wrong with that?
[quote][p][bold]SRT_CM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandak[/bold] wrote: I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?[/p][/quote]Were you trained as a writer or painter? If not, then moving into those fields may well be a "pipe dream" or "ideal" job, as something you just fancy doing for a living. But if you read the article, he was trained as a film-maker. That is his 'trade', why is it inappropriate for him to now want to work in this field professionally? But that's not really the point of the article, is it? The point is, someone who was born and has lived in the UK is being denied jobseeker's allowance because he was on an internship in Brussels for a few months. Quoting the DWP, “As has always been the case, anyone who chooses to live in another country for a long period of time and so isn’t contributing in Britain must, if they return to the UK and want to claim benefits, prove that they have strong ties to this country in order to pass the Habitual Residence Test,” – does any of this sound like it applies to Mr. Hall? Live in another country for a long period of time? No. Strong ties to the country? Born and resident here all his life, can't really have stronger ties than that I'd have thought![/p][/quote]Yep, trained as both writer and painter. Both tricky careers to pursue and I don't expect an 'easy ride'. They are my chosen 'professions' as it were and I carry the qualifications for both. But both pursuits are very subjective and a qualification doesn't necessarily mean you'll get where you want to be. Never said it was inappropriate for him to want to work in his chosen field, surely everyone has a dream job they want!? I'd love to concentrate solely on my chosen fields. Those lucky enough to be in theirs must thank their lucky stars. But why should you be automatically entitled to benefits just because your course/internship, whatever you pursued, didn't pan out as expected? He lived abroad for 4 months working on an internship most likely in the hope it would lead to something else and got paid to do it. That's a job with an end date. It's no different to a job covering say maternity leave. The applicant is aware its a job with a limited timescale and they need to forward plan for the end of the role while maybe hoping they keep you on. He was away for a third of a year, it's a significant amount of time. Playing devils advocate, but what's to stop anyone from applying for a similar internship, having it finish, coming home to the UK for six months to claim benefits and then apply for a similar course and go off again to work abroad? DWP want the claimant to prove he is making a life here for the foreseeable future and intends to contribute to the economy through gainful employment. What's wrong with that? Mandak
  • Score: -1

7:47pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Trimwise says...

SRT_CM wrote:
Mandak wrote:
I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?
Were you trained as a writer or painter? If not, then moving into those fields may well be a "pipe dream" or "ideal" job, as something you just fancy doing for a living.

But if you read the article, he was trained as a film-maker. That is his 'trade', why is it inappropriate for him to now want to work in this field professionally?

But that's not really the point of the article, is it? The point is, someone who was born and has lived in the UK is being denied jobseeker's allowance because he was on an internship in Brussels for a few months.

Quoting the DWP, “As has always been the case, anyone who chooses to live in another country for a long period of time and so isn’t contributing in Britain must, if they return to the UK and want to claim benefits, prove that they have strong ties to this country in order to pass the Habitual Residence Test,” – does any of this sound like it applies to Mr. Hall?

Live in another country for a long period of time?

No.

Strong ties to the country?

Born and resident here all his life, can't really have stronger ties than that I'd have thought!
Spot on pal!
[quote][p][bold]SRT_CM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandak[/bold] wrote: I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?[/p][/quote]Were you trained as a writer or painter? If not, then moving into those fields may well be a "pipe dream" or "ideal" job, as something you just fancy doing for a living. But if you read the article, he was trained as a film-maker. That is his 'trade', why is it inappropriate for him to now want to work in this field professionally? But that's not really the point of the article, is it? The point is, someone who was born and has lived in the UK is being denied jobseeker's allowance because he was on an internship in Brussels for a few months. Quoting the DWP, “As has always been the case, anyone who chooses to live in another country for a long period of time and so isn’t contributing in Britain must, if they return to the UK and want to claim benefits, prove that they have strong ties to this country in order to pass the Habitual Residence Test,” – does any of this sound like it applies to Mr. Hall? Live in another country for a long period of time? No. Strong ties to the country? Born and resident here all his life, can't really have stronger ties than that I'd have thought![/p][/quote]Spot on pal! Trimwise
  • Score: 2

7:50pm Fri 14 Feb 14

eeoodares says...

Mandak wrote:
Trimwise wrote:
Mandak wrote:
I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?
Eh hem, I would like to clarify that I am currently applying for loads of menial jobs like a lot of people. I easily applied for more than what Job seekers require and showed them my applications on Universal Job match. I hope this has cleared up your incorrect assumptions that I'm a totally lazy bugger.

respectfully yours, Tim Hall.
Fair enough then, Tim Hall. Good on you for looking for work. But pursuing a dream in this manner means taking risks sometimes without the safety net of benefits at the end. If you voluntarily leave a paid job to train or you leave benefits to sign on for an internship (uk based or abroad) to upskill in a certain area of expertise, at the end of the course/internship you are not always entitled to benefits just because it has finished. Same as you are not always entitled to benefits during a course or internship if it is unpaid. If you were working abroad and especially if you were being paid and out of the country for 4 months, I'm not surprised you're not eligible for benefits on your return as you were technically living and working abroad. You were pursuing a life outside the UK which you are perfectly entitled to do. You weren't made redundant in the UK, you didn't lose your job in the UK through no fault of your own - you took a risk on an internship abroad which I would suspect you hoped would lead to other things/contacts, maybe a permanent position. I did something similar a while back, left a paid job for a great course, thoroughly enjoyed it, but I wasn't entitled to benefits at the end, I wouldn't have been eligible for 3 months. I had to find a job or live off savings. A friend of mine on the same course made a fantastic contact and took a permanent position abroad as a result of the course. Sometimes it pans out sometimes it doesn't, but choosing to chase a dream carries those risks, you're not entitled to benefits because it didn't turn out the way you expected. That was the point I was making, never said you were a lazy bugger, I'm sure you're not.
........'The letter went on to say that as an ‘EEA national,’ his right to reside as a JobSeeker would be limited to six months unless he could provide evidence he was continuing to seek work and had a genuine chance of work.'

There are plenty of menial jobs in York, every other shop window and restaurant seems to be advertising for them. Type up CV's and go door knocking, and if you are bright and well presented you should get a job by the end of the day! If you do not, the problem is either the CV or you, change one then the other until you get a job.
[quote][p][bold]Mandak[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trimwise[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandak[/bold] wrote: I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?[/p][/quote]Eh hem, I would like to clarify that I am currently applying for loads of menial jobs like a lot of people. I easily applied for more than what Job seekers require and showed them my applications on Universal Job match. I hope this has cleared up your incorrect assumptions that I'm a totally lazy bugger. respectfully yours, Tim Hall.[/p][/quote]Fair enough then, Tim Hall. Good on you for looking for work. But pursuing a dream in this manner means taking risks sometimes without the safety net of benefits at the end. If you voluntarily leave a paid job to train or you leave benefits to sign on for an internship (uk based or abroad) to upskill in a certain area of expertise, at the end of the course/internship you are not always entitled to benefits just because it has finished. Same as you are not always entitled to benefits during a course or internship if it is unpaid. If you were working abroad and especially if you were being paid and out of the country for 4 months, I'm not surprised you're not eligible for benefits on your return as you were technically living and working abroad. You were pursuing a life outside the UK which you are perfectly entitled to do. You weren't made redundant in the UK, you didn't lose your job in the UK through no fault of your own - you took a risk on an internship abroad which I would suspect you hoped would lead to other things/contacts, maybe a permanent position. I did something similar a while back, left a paid job for a great course, thoroughly enjoyed it, but I wasn't entitled to benefits at the end, I wouldn't have been eligible for 3 months. I had to find a job or live off savings. A friend of mine on the same course made a fantastic contact and took a permanent position abroad as a result of the course. Sometimes it pans out sometimes it doesn't, but choosing to chase a dream carries those risks, you're not entitled to benefits because it didn't turn out the way you expected. That was the point I was making, never said you were a lazy bugger, I'm sure you're not.[/p][/quote]........'The letter went on to say that as an ‘EEA national,’ his right to reside as a JobSeeker would be limited to six months unless he could provide evidence he was continuing to seek work and had a genuine chance of work.' There are plenty of menial jobs in York, every other shop window and restaurant seems to be advertising for them. Type up CV's and go door knocking, and if you are bright and well presented you should get a job by the end of the day! If you do not, the problem is either the CV or you, change one then the other until you get a job. eeoodares
  • Score: 2

7:58pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Trimwise says...

Mandak wrote:
SRT_CM wrote:
Mandak wrote:
I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?
Were you trained as a writer or painter? If not, then moving into those fields may well be a "pipe dream" or "ideal" job, as something you just fancy doing for a living.

But if you read the article, he was trained as a film-maker. That is his 'trade', why is it inappropriate for him to now want to work in this field professionally?

But that's not really the point of the article, is it? The point is, someone who was born and has lived in the UK is being denied jobseeker's allowance because he was on an internship in Brussels for a few months.

Quoting the DWP, “As has always been the case, anyone who chooses to live in another country for a long period of time and so isn’t contributing in Britain must, if they return to the UK and want to claim benefits, prove that they have strong ties to this country in order to pass the Habitual Residence Test,” – does any of this sound like it applies to Mr. Hall?

Live in another country for a long period of time?

No.

Strong ties to the country?

Born and resident here all his life, can't really have stronger ties than that I'd have thought!
Yep, trained as both writer and painter. Both tricky careers to pursue and I don't expect an 'easy ride'. They are my chosen 'professions' as it were and I carry the qualifications for both. But both pursuits are very subjective and a qualification doesn't necessarily mean you'll get where you want to be. Never said it was inappropriate for him to want to work in his chosen field, surely everyone has a dream job they want!? I'd love to concentrate solely on my chosen fields. Those lucky enough to be in theirs must thank their lucky stars. But why should you be automatically entitled to benefits just because your course/internship, whatever you pursued, didn't pan out as expected? He lived abroad for 4 months working on an internship most likely in the hope it would lead to something else and got paid to do it. That's a job with an end date. It's no different to a job covering say maternity leave. The applicant is aware its a job with a limited timescale and they need to forward plan for the end of the role while maybe hoping they keep you on. He was away for a third of a year, it's a significant amount of time. Playing devils advocate, but what's to stop anyone from applying for a similar internship, having it finish, coming home to the UK for six months to claim benefits and then apply for a similar course and go off again to work abroad? DWP want the claimant to prove he is making a life here for the foreseeable future and intends to contribute to the economy through gainful employment. What's wrong with that?
Pushing people into poverty for the sake of "the economy" is appalling. Don't worry Mandak I know that's not a literal quote from you. This is what they are doing though. Can you tell me what I would be supposed to do if my Mum wasn't supporting me, they've cut my JSA/Housing Benifits and I can;t get a job for whatever reason. Should I just shut up and die on the streets? I am speaking hypothetically remember and I am very fortunate that my mum has a place for me but this backwards system must essentially be doing this to UK and EU nationals alike. The "economy" isn't more important than peoples welfare in my opinion. Peace n love
[quote][p][bold]Mandak[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SRT_CM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mandak[/bold] wrote: I applaud this chap for using his initiative and improving his skills. But we all have pipe dream, 'ideal' jobs. I'd love to be a full time writer and painter but I still have to pay the bills. I do a rather unfulfilling day job for just that reason and chase my dream in my spare time. That's real life, why should you deserve benefits just because your ideal job hasn't presented itself?[/p][/quote]Were you trained as a writer or painter? If not, then moving into those fields may well be a "pipe dream" or "ideal" job, as something you just fancy doing for a living. But if you read the article, he was trained as a film-maker. That is his 'trade', why is it inappropriate for him to now want to work in this field professionally? But that's not really the point of the article, is it? The point is, someone who was born and has lived in the UK is being denied jobseeker's allowance because he was on an internship in Brussels for a few months. Quoting the DWP, “As has always been the case, anyone who chooses to live in another country for a long period of time and so isn’t contributing in Britain must, if they return to the UK and want to claim benefits, prove that they have strong ties to this country in order to pass the Habitual Residence Test,” – does any of this sound like it applies to Mr. Hall? Live in another country for a long period of time? No. Strong ties to the country? Born and resident here all his life, can't really have stronger ties than that I'd have thought![/p][/quote]Yep, trained as both writer and painter. Both tricky careers to pursue and I don't expect an 'easy ride'. They are my chosen 'professions' as it were and I carry the qualifications for both. But both pursuits are very subjective and a qualification doesn't necessarily mean you'll get where you want to be. Never said it was inappropriate for him to want to work in his chosen field, surely everyone has a dream job they want!? I'd love to concentrate solely on my chosen fields. Those lucky enough to be in theirs must thank their lucky stars. But why should you be automatically entitled to benefits just because your course/internship, whatever you pursued, didn't pan out as expected? He lived abroad for 4 months working on an internship most likely in the hope it would lead to something else and got paid to do it. That's a job with an end date. It's no different to a job covering say maternity leave. The applicant is aware its a job with a limited timescale and they need to forward plan for the end of the role while maybe hoping they keep you on. He was away for a third of a year, it's a significant amount of time. Playing devils advocate, but what's to stop anyone from applying for a similar internship, having it finish, coming home to the UK for six months to claim benefits and then apply for a similar course and go off again to work abroad? DWP want the claimant to prove he is making a life here for the foreseeable future and intends to contribute to the economy through gainful employment. What's wrong with that?[/p][/quote]Pushing people into poverty for the sake of "the economy" is appalling. Don't worry Mandak I know that's not a literal quote from you. This is what they are doing though. Can you tell me what I would be supposed to do if my Mum wasn't supporting me, they've cut my JSA/Housing Benifits and I can;t get a job for whatever reason. Should I just shut up and die on the streets? I am speaking hypothetically remember and I am very fortunate that my mum has a place for me but this backwards system must essentially be doing this to UK and EU nationals alike. The "economy" isn't more important than peoples welfare in my opinion. Peace n love Trimwise
  • Score: 1

8:15pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Thecynic says...

The reason that this has come about Mr Hall is the fact that the Government imposed a habitual residency test on EU citizens who came to the UK to look for work.
Under the free movement of labour act in EU law this was illegal because it discriminated against EU workers in favour of British workers. Britain was warned about it several times but chose to ignore it. The result is that the EU are now taking Britain to court for breach of EU law, so the Government, in order to be seen to be complying, (or semi complying) with the law, have decided to impose the test on British workers too!

How this is going to pan out is anyone's guess? Most people only see one side of a discussion and tend to 'gloss over' the other side of it.

They don't seem to have grasped that this could have some major implications for tens if not hundreds of thousands of British workers in the future.
For example, taking your 4 months away from Britain as a benchmark.
How many British workers are employed overseas on civil engineering projects, how many British people study overseas in Universities, How many British seamen are employed around the World,(not all work for a UK company), the list goes on and on.
The Government have once again attempted to 'patch up' their illegal acts by bringing in hastily, ill thought out regulations and the only people who will be affected by this is? - Yes you guessed it, the British workers themselves.

Ironically, if the British Government had adhered to the EU law just like the other 30 or so other EU Countries? then this situation would never have happened and we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
The reason that this has come about Mr Hall is the fact that the Government imposed a habitual residency test on EU citizens who came to the UK to look for work. Under the free movement of labour act in EU law this was illegal because it discriminated against EU workers in favour of British workers. Britain was warned about it several times but chose to ignore it. The result is that the EU are now taking Britain to court for breach of EU law, so the Government, in order to be seen to be complying, (or semi complying) with the law, have decided to impose the test on British workers too! How this is going to pan out is anyone's guess? Most people only see one side of a discussion and tend to 'gloss over' the other side of it. They don't seem to have grasped that this could have some major implications for tens if not hundreds of thousands of British workers in the future. For example, taking your 4 months away from Britain as a benchmark. How many British workers are employed overseas on civil engineering projects, how many British people study overseas in Universities, How many British seamen are employed around the World,(not all work for a UK company), the list goes on and on. The Government have once again attempted to 'patch up' their illegal acts by bringing in hastily, ill thought out regulations and the only people who will be affected by this is? - Yes you guessed it, the British workers themselves. Ironically, if the British Government had adhered to the EU law just like the other 30 or so other EU Countries? then this situation would never have happened and we wouldn't be having this discussion now. Thecynic
  • Score: 6

9:46pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Thecynic wrote:
The reason that this has come about Mr Hall is the fact that the Government imposed a habitual residency test on EU citizens who came to the UK to look for work.
Under the free movement of labour act in EU law this was illegal because it discriminated against EU workers in favour of British workers. Britain was warned about it several times but chose to ignore it. The result is that the EU are now taking Britain to court for breach of EU law, so the Government, in order to be seen to be complying, (or semi complying) with the law, have decided to impose the test on British workers too!

How this is going to pan out is anyone's guess? Most people only see one side of a discussion and tend to 'gloss over' the other side of it.

They don't seem to have grasped that this could have some major implications for tens if not hundreds of thousands of British workers in the future.
For example, taking your 4 months away from Britain as a benchmark.
How many British workers are employed overseas on civil engineering projects, how many British people study overseas in Universities, How many British seamen are employed around the World,(not all work for a UK company), the list goes on and on.
The Government have once again attempted to 'patch up' their illegal acts by bringing in hastily, ill thought out regulations and the only people who will be affected by this is? - Yes you guessed it, the British workers themselves.

Ironically, if the British Government had adhered to the EU law just like the other 30 or so other EU Countries? then this situation would never have happened and we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
Or if we had left the EU this would never have happened. Terry's factory might never have closed down and the jobs been exported to Eastern Europe, among thousands of other factories.
Here's the 1970 Tory manifesto which makes one tiny mention of joining the EU as though it was a vague idea.
http://www.conservat
ive-party.net/manife
stos/1970/1970-conse
rvative-manifesto.sh
tml
[quote][p][bold]Thecynic[/bold] wrote: The reason that this has come about Mr Hall is the fact that the Government imposed a habitual residency test on EU citizens who came to the UK to look for work. Under the free movement of labour act in EU law this was illegal because it discriminated against EU workers in favour of British workers. Britain was warned about it several times but chose to ignore it. The result is that the EU are now taking Britain to court for breach of EU law, so the Government, in order to be seen to be complying, (or semi complying) with the law, have decided to impose the test on British workers too! How this is going to pan out is anyone's guess? Most people only see one side of a discussion and tend to 'gloss over' the other side of it. They don't seem to have grasped that this could have some major implications for tens if not hundreds of thousands of British workers in the future. For example, taking your 4 months away from Britain as a benchmark. How many British workers are employed overseas on civil engineering projects, how many British people study overseas in Universities, How many British seamen are employed around the World,(not all work for a UK company), the list goes on and on. The Government have once again attempted to 'patch up' their illegal acts by bringing in hastily, ill thought out regulations and the only people who will be affected by this is? - Yes you guessed it, the British workers themselves. Ironically, if the British Government had adhered to the EU law just like the other 30 or so other EU Countries? then this situation would never have happened and we wouldn't be having this discussion now.[/p][/quote]Or if we had left the EU this would never have happened. Terry's factory might never have closed down and the jobs been exported to Eastern Europe, among thousands of other factories. Here's the 1970 Tory manifesto which makes one tiny mention of joining the EU as though it was a vague idea. http://www.conservat ive-party.net/manife stos/1970/1970-conse rvative-manifesto.sh tml Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

12:15am Sat 15 Feb 14

nearlyman says...

Do me a favour. he should get in the queue of all the other budding film makers, pop stars and tv presenters / celebrities .....take a reality check. It aint going to happen unless you get some very lucky breaks. How long does the great BP have to subsidise these people for ?? Clearly Hugh says yes , throw money at him.....but thats what his lot love to do....where has it got the country???
Face the facts I say.
Do me a favour. he should get in the queue of all the other budding film makers, pop stars and tv presenters / celebrities .....take a reality check. It aint going to happen unless you get some very lucky breaks. How long does the great BP have to subsidise these people for ?? Clearly Hugh says yes , throw money at him.....but thats what his lot love to do....where has it got the country??? Face the facts I say. nearlyman
  • Score: -7

12:32am Sat 15 Feb 14

over 9000 says...

ReginaldBiscuit wrote:
asd wrote:
Why do you think the jobless figures go down. Every Goverment massage the figures this is an example of how they achieve this. Of course this man is a Johny foreigner..... shows how much this coalition is a joke.
Indeed. The figures are distorted. Same as the police blow off about reported crime figures, they never produce any information about crimes that aren't reported or the police fail to follow through.

It's just another example of the poor and desperate being picked on by the current government whilst the banks and bankers are allowed to continue their devious and rotten practices. The banks (and the media) in this country have too much power.

I wouldn't worry about the Coalition though. Since posh Dave took over, membership of the tory party has dropped to 134,000 from 250,000. UKIP is taking chunks of their support. Moderate conservatism is dead. Radical right-wing ideology is on the rise. I fully expect to see the Lib-Dems blown away at the next general election. Be interesting to see what emerges.

There should be a ministry for common sense and quite clearly, this lad should be entitled to his paltry amount from the government.
They can't give figures for unreported crimes because they are unreported! What do you expect them to do? Knock on peoples' doors and ask them if they have any unreported crimes they'd like the police to be aware of?
[quote][p][bold]ReginaldBiscuit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: Why do you think the jobless figures go down. Every Goverment massage the figures this is an example of how they achieve this. Of course this man is a Johny foreigner..... shows how much this coalition is a joke.[/p][/quote]Indeed. The figures are distorted. Same as the police blow off about reported crime figures, they never produce any information about crimes that aren't reported or the police fail to follow through. It's just another example of the poor and desperate being picked on by the current government whilst the banks and bankers are allowed to continue their devious and rotten practices. The banks (and the media) in this country have too much power. I wouldn't worry about the Coalition though. Since posh Dave took over, membership of the tory party has dropped to 134,000 from 250,000. UKIP is taking chunks of their support. Moderate conservatism is dead. Radical right-wing ideology is on the rise. I fully expect to see the Lib-Dems blown away at the next general election. Be interesting to see what emerges. There should be a ministry for common sense and quite clearly, this lad should be entitled to his paltry amount from the government.[/p][/quote]They can't give figures for unreported crimes because they are unreported! What do you expect them to do? Knock on peoples' doors and ask them if they have any unreported crimes they'd like the police to be aware of? over 9000
  • Score: 4

8:19am Sat 15 Feb 14

Thecynic says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
Thecynic wrote:
The reason that this has come about Mr Hall is the fact that the Government imposed a habitual residency test on EU citizens who came to the UK to look for work.
Under the free movement of labour act in EU law this was illegal because it discriminated against EU workers in favour of British workers. Britain was warned about it several times but chose to ignore it. The result is that the EU are now taking Britain to court for breach of EU law, so the Government, in order to be seen to be complying, (or semi complying) with the law, have decided to impose the test on British workers too!

How this is going to pan out is anyone's guess? Most people only see one side of a discussion and tend to 'gloss over' the other side of it.

They don't seem to have grasped that this could have some major implications for tens if not hundreds of thousands of British workers in the future.
For example, taking your 4 months away from Britain as a benchmark.
How many British workers are employed overseas on civil engineering projects, how many British people study overseas in Universities, How many British seamen are employed around the World,(not all work for a UK company), the list goes on and on.
The Government have once again attempted to 'patch up' their illegal acts by bringing in hastily, ill thought out regulations and the only people who will be affected by this is? - Yes you guessed it, the British workers themselves.

Ironically, if the British Government had adhered to the EU law just like the other 30 or so other EU Countries? then this situation would never have happened and we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
Or if we had left the EU this would never have happened. Terry's factory might never have closed down and the jobs been exported to Eastern Europe, among thousands of other factories.
Here's the 1970 Tory manifesto which makes one tiny mention of joining the EU as though it was a vague idea.
http://www.conservat

ive-party.net/manife

stos/1970/1970-conse

rvative-manifesto.sh

tml
But the point is that we haven't left the EU. We may get a chance to alter that in 2017? However Britain has signed up to accepting certain legal issues along with the other 30 odd Nations.
As such we have a legal obligation to follow the laws as laid down by the EU, Laws that Britain itself has had a hand in helping to form, - yes we do have MSP's who have a say in any EU law created just as other Countries have.
As a Country we have a legal obligation to follow these laws because we are (still) a member of the union and we had a hand in deciding them. Put in a simpler context, YOU are a member of the UK by way of being a citizen, therefore YOU have an obligation to abide by the laws laid down by the UK Government, whether you agree with them or not? For instance taking YOU as a member of society, (just as Britain is a member of the EU) why should YOU be allowed to flout the law on say drink driving, just because YOU may not agree with it? use any law you like in that situation. Everyone else abides by it so why shouldn't YOU?

That is the principle that my previous post was trying to make, if Britain (or it's citizens) don't agree to the laws, then the answer is not to ignore them and be taken to court for it, the answer is to take a vote on leaving ,surely?
A very great majority of EU legislation covers the treatment of citizens and the rights of workers, a fact conveniently omitted by many anti-EU campaigners.
So my opinion differs very slightly from yours on a couple of points, I think you are correct in saying that 'this would never have happened' if we had not been in the EU. But my reason for agreeing with your statement probably differs, I believe it wouldn't have happened because of the fact that without the protection of the current EU laws, the tories would have dismantled the very safety net of benefits to such a degree while ensuring that people's rights were eroded, that the discussion would have been pointless.
With trade union power now eroded to that of a domestic **** cat, the only 'lifeline' for the sake of a word, that the average hard working low paid worker has, along with sick and vulnerable people, unemployed persons et al. is the protection afforded by the legal framework issued by the EU and governing those people's rights across 30 Countries!
Remove that, then sit back and watch the tories really get to work eroding your rights and civil liberties!
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thecynic[/bold] wrote: The reason that this has come about Mr Hall is the fact that the Government imposed a habitual residency test on EU citizens who came to the UK to look for work. Under the free movement of labour act in EU law this was illegal because it discriminated against EU workers in favour of British workers. Britain was warned about it several times but chose to ignore it. The result is that the EU are now taking Britain to court for breach of EU law, so the Government, in order to be seen to be complying, (or semi complying) with the law, have decided to impose the test on British workers too! How this is going to pan out is anyone's guess? Most people only see one side of a discussion and tend to 'gloss over' the other side of it. They don't seem to have grasped that this could have some major implications for tens if not hundreds of thousands of British workers in the future. For example, taking your 4 months away from Britain as a benchmark. How many British workers are employed overseas on civil engineering projects, how many British people study overseas in Universities, How many British seamen are employed around the World,(not all work for a UK company), the list goes on and on. The Government have once again attempted to 'patch up' their illegal acts by bringing in hastily, ill thought out regulations and the only people who will be affected by this is? - Yes you guessed it, the British workers themselves. Ironically, if the British Government had adhered to the EU law just like the other 30 or so other EU Countries? then this situation would never have happened and we wouldn't be having this discussion now.[/p][/quote]Or if we had left the EU this would never have happened. Terry's factory might never have closed down and the jobs been exported to Eastern Europe, among thousands of other factories. Here's the 1970 Tory manifesto which makes one tiny mention of joining the EU as though it was a vague idea. http://www.conservat ive-party.net/manife stos/1970/1970-conse rvative-manifesto.sh tml[/p][/quote]But the point is that we haven't left the EU. We may get a chance to alter that in 2017? However Britain has signed up to accepting certain legal issues along with the other 30 odd Nations. As such we have a legal obligation to follow the laws as laid down by the EU, Laws that Britain itself has had a hand in helping to form, - yes we do have MSP's who have a say in any EU law created just as other Countries have. As a Country we have a legal obligation to follow these laws because we are (still) a member of the union and we had a hand in deciding them. Put in a simpler context, YOU are a member of the UK by way of being a citizen, therefore YOU have an obligation to abide by the laws laid down by the UK Government, whether you agree with them or not? For instance taking YOU as a member of society, (just as Britain is a member of the EU) why should YOU be allowed to flout the law on say drink driving, just because YOU may not agree with it? use any law you like in that situation. Everyone else abides by it so why shouldn't YOU? That is the principle that my previous post was trying to make, if Britain (or it's citizens) don't agree to the laws, then the answer is not to ignore them and be taken to court for it, the answer is to take a vote on leaving ,surely? A very great majority of EU legislation covers the treatment of citizens and the rights of workers, a fact conveniently omitted by many anti-EU campaigners. So my opinion differs very slightly from yours on a couple of points, I think you are correct in saying that 'this would never have happened' if we had not been in the EU. But my reason for agreeing with your statement probably differs, I believe it wouldn't have happened because of the fact that without the protection of the current EU laws, the tories would have dismantled the very safety net of benefits to such a degree while ensuring that people's rights were eroded, that the discussion would have been pointless. With trade union power now eroded to that of a domestic **** cat, the only 'lifeline' for the sake of a word, that the average hard working low paid worker has, along with sick and vulnerable people, unemployed persons et al. is the protection afforded by the legal framework issued by the EU and governing those people's rights across 30 Countries! Remove that, then sit back and watch the tories really get to work eroding your rights and civil liberties! Thecynic
  • Score: 2

2:38pm Sat 15 Feb 14

Sillybillies says...

nearlyman wrote:
Do me a favour. he should get in the queue of all the other budding film makers, pop stars and tv presenters / celebrities .....take a reality check. It aint going to happen unless you get some very lucky breaks. How long does the great BP have to subsidise these people for ?? Clearly Hugh says yes , throw money at him.....but thats what his lot love to do....where has it got the country???
Face the facts I say.
Anyone who thinks he's going to get a job using a ludicrous degree in "film making" obtained from a mediocre university like the former Leeds Polytechnic is living in cloud cuckoo land. I for one am pleased the cut backs in benefits to subsidise self indulgence are really biting.
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: Do me a favour. he should get in the queue of all the other budding film makers, pop stars and tv presenters / celebrities .....take a reality check. It aint going to happen unless you get some very lucky breaks. How long does the great BP have to subsidise these people for ?? Clearly Hugh says yes , throw money at him.....but thats what his lot love to do....where has it got the country??? Face the facts I say.[/p][/quote]Anyone who thinks he's going to get a job using a ludicrous degree in "film making" obtained from a mediocre university like the former Leeds Polytechnic is living in cloud cuckoo land. I for one am pleased the cut backs in benefits to subsidise self indulgence are really biting. Sillybillies
  • Score: -2

5:16pm Sat 15 Feb 14

suelukes says...

Hi Tim (since you seem to be monitoring the comments!). the article points up the injustice of the new rules, and thanks for going public and taking all the ignorant and unpleasant under the line abuse for it. But I think it is very likely they have been wrongly applied to you in any case as you are a returning habitual resident: check www.housing-rights.i
nfo or the Shelter website. So do appeal! And good luck in your career and jobsearch.
Hi Tim (since you seem to be monitoring the comments!). the article points up the injustice of the new rules, and thanks for going public and taking all the ignorant and unpleasant under the line abuse for it. But I think it is very likely they have been wrongly applied to you in any case as you are a returning habitual resident: check www.housing-rights.i nfo or the Shelter website. So do appeal! And good luck in your career and jobsearch. suelukes
  • Score: 7

6:47pm Sat 15 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

suelukes wrote:
Hi Tim (since you seem to be monitoring the comments!). the article points up the injustice of the new rules, and thanks for going public and taking all the ignorant and unpleasant under the line abuse for it. But I think it is very likely they have been wrongly applied to you in any case as you are a returning habitual resident: check www.housing-rights.i

nfo or the Shelter website. So do appeal! And good luck in your career and jobsearch.
I have to agree with your comment, and also I cannot believe how many nasty, small minded commenters there are on this site, I wish you the best of luck Tim, and to quote a previous commenter take your skill out of this country, I worked abroad in the 70's, in both Europe and Middle East, and it certainly broadened my mind and attitudes to others!
[quote][p][bold]suelukes[/bold] wrote: Hi Tim (since you seem to be monitoring the comments!). the article points up the injustice of the new rules, and thanks for going public and taking all the ignorant and unpleasant under the line abuse for it. But I think it is very likely they have been wrongly applied to you in any case as you are a returning habitual resident: check www.housing-rights.i nfo or the Shelter website. So do appeal! And good luck in your career and jobsearch.[/p][/quote]I have to agree with your comment, and also I cannot believe how many nasty, small minded commenters there are on this site, I wish you the best of luck Tim, and to quote a previous commenter take your skill out of this country, I worked abroad in the 70's, in both Europe and Middle East, and it certainly broadened my mind and attitudes to others! Igiveinthen
  • Score: 10

7:15am Sun 16 Feb 14

Dazmond says...

Governments both past and present have made a complete mess of the benefits system in this country, for years it has been too easy for people from all backgrounds to exploit the system and abuse it for all it's worth.

But they refuse to accept any responsibility for this, and are instead using people such as this poor fellow here as a scapegoat for their total incompetence over the years.

Now people who are in genuine need of benefits have little hope of getting them.

I am fortunate enough to be in work, but I feel for many people who have paid into the system over the years, and now find themselves out of work and in need of a little help.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Governments both past and present have made a complete mess of the benefits system in this country, for years it has been too easy for people from all backgrounds to exploit the system and abuse it for all it's worth. But they refuse to accept any responsibility for this, and are instead using people such as this poor fellow here as a scapegoat for their total incompetence over the years. Now people who are in genuine need of benefits have little hope of getting them. I am fortunate enough to be in work, but I feel for many people who have paid into the system over the years, and now find themselves out of work and in need of a little help. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Dazmond
  • Score: 4

8:00pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Thecynic wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Thecynic wrote:
The reason that this has come about Mr Hall is the fact that the Government imposed a habitual residency test on EU citizens who came to the UK to look for work.
Under the free movement of labour act in EU law this was illegal because it discriminated against EU workers in favour of British workers. Britain was warned about it several times but chose to ignore it. The result is that the EU are now taking Britain to court for breach of EU law, so the Government, in order to be seen to be complying, (or semi complying) with the law, have decided to impose the test on British workers too!

How this is going to pan out is anyone's guess? Most people only see one side of a discussion and tend to 'gloss over' the other side of it.

They don't seem to have grasped that this could have some major implications for tens if not hundreds of thousands of British workers in the future.
For example, taking your 4 months away from Britain as a benchmark.
How many British workers are employed overseas on civil engineering projects, how many British people study overseas in Universities, How many British seamen are employed around the World,(not all work for a UK company), the list goes on and on.
The Government have once again attempted to 'patch up' their illegal acts by bringing in hastily, ill thought out regulations and the only people who will be affected by this is? - Yes you guessed it, the British workers themselves.

Ironically, if the British Government had adhered to the EU law just like the other 30 or so other EU Countries? then this situation would never have happened and we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
Or if we had left the EU this would never have happened. Terry's factory might never have closed down and the jobs been exported to Eastern Europe, among thousands of other factories.
Here's the 1970 Tory manifesto which makes one tiny mention of joining the EU as though it was a vague idea.
http://www.conservat


ive-party.net/manife


stos/1970/1970-conse


rvative-manifesto.sh


tml
But the point is that we haven't left the EU. We may get a chance to alter that in 2017? However Britain has signed up to accepting certain legal issues along with the other 30 odd Nations.
As such we have a legal obligation to follow the laws as laid down by the EU, Laws that Britain itself has had a hand in helping to form, - yes we do have MSP's who have a say in any EU law created just as other Countries have.
As a Country we have a legal obligation to follow these laws because we are (still) a member of the union and we had a hand in deciding them. Put in a simpler context, YOU are a member of the UK by way of being a citizen, therefore YOU have an obligation to abide by the laws laid down by the UK Government, whether you agree with them or not? For instance taking YOU as a member of society, (just as Britain is a member of the EU) why should YOU be allowed to flout the law on say drink driving, just because YOU may not agree with it? use any law you like in that situation. Everyone else abides by it so why shouldn't YOU?

That is the principle that my previous post was trying to make, if Britain (or it's citizens) don't agree to the laws, then the answer is not to ignore them and be taken to court for it, the answer is to take a vote on leaving ,surely?
A very great majority of EU legislation covers the treatment of citizens and the rights of workers, a fact conveniently omitted by many anti-EU campaigners.
So my opinion differs very slightly from yours on a couple of points, I think you are correct in saying that 'this would never have happened' if we had not been in the EU. But my reason for agreeing with your statement probably differs, I believe it wouldn't have happened because of the fact that without the protection of the current EU laws, the tories would have dismantled the very safety net of benefits to such a degree while ensuring that people's rights were eroded, that the discussion would have been pointless.
With trade union power now eroded to that of a domestic **** cat, the only 'lifeline' for the sake of a word, that the average hard working low paid worker has, along with sick and vulnerable people, unemployed persons et al. is the protection afforded by the legal framework issued by the EU and governing those people's rights across 30 Countries!
Remove that, then sit back and watch the tories really get to work eroding your rights and civil liberties!
I considered replying to you but to be honest I think you would have simply drowned me in another wall of text. Have a look at this article on the "Gish Gallop" to see what I mean.
http://rationalwiki.
org/wiki/Gish_gallop
[quote][p][bold]Thecynic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thecynic[/bold] wrote: The reason that this has come about Mr Hall is the fact that the Government imposed a habitual residency test on EU citizens who came to the UK to look for work. Under the free movement of labour act in EU law this was illegal because it discriminated against EU workers in favour of British workers. Britain was warned about it several times but chose to ignore it. The result is that the EU are now taking Britain to court for breach of EU law, so the Government, in order to be seen to be complying, (or semi complying) with the law, have decided to impose the test on British workers too! How this is going to pan out is anyone's guess? Most people only see one side of a discussion and tend to 'gloss over' the other side of it. They don't seem to have grasped that this could have some major implications for tens if not hundreds of thousands of British workers in the future. For example, taking your 4 months away from Britain as a benchmark. How many British workers are employed overseas on civil engineering projects, how many British people study overseas in Universities, How many British seamen are employed around the World,(not all work for a UK company), the list goes on and on. The Government have once again attempted to 'patch up' their illegal acts by bringing in hastily, ill thought out regulations and the only people who will be affected by this is? - Yes you guessed it, the British workers themselves. Ironically, if the British Government had adhered to the EU law just like the other 30 or so other EU Countries? then this situation would never have happened and we wouldn't be having this discussion now.[/p][/quote]Or if we had left the EU this would never have happened. Terry's factory might never have closed down and the jobs been exported to Eastern Europe, among thousands of other factories. Here's the 1970 Tory manifesto which makes one tiny mention of joining the EU as though it was a vague idea. http://www.conservat ive-party.net/manife stos/1970/1970-conse rvative-manifesto.sh tml[/p][/quote]But the point is that we haven't left the EU. We may get a chance to alter that in 2017? However Britain has signed up to accepting certain legal issues along with the other 30 odd Nations. As such we have a legal obligation to follow the laws as laid down by the EU, Laws that Britain itself has had a hand in helping to form, - yes we do have MSP's who have a say in any EU law created just as other Countries have. As a Country we have a legal obligation to follow these laws because we are (still) a member of the union and we had a hand in deciding them. Put in a simpler context, YOU are a member of the UK by way of being a citizen, therefore YOU have an obligation to abide by the laws laid down by the UK Government, whether you agree with them or not? For instance taking YOU as a member of society, (just as Britain is a member of the EU) why should YOU be allowed to flout the law on say drink driving, just because YOU may not agree with it? use any law you like in that situation. Everyone else abides by it so why shouldn't YOU? That is the principle that my previous post was trying to make, if Britain (or it's citizens) don't agree to the laws, then the answer is not to ignore them and be taken to court for it, the answer is to take a vote on leaving ,surely? A very great majority of EU legislation covers the treatment of citizens and the rights of workers, a fact conveniently omitted by many anti-EU campaigners. So my opinion differs very slightly from yours on a couple of points, I think you are correct in saying that 'this would never have happened' if we had not been in the EU. But my reason for agreeing with your statement probably differs, I believe it wouldn't have happened because of the fact that without the protection of the current EU laws, the tories would have dismantled the very safety net of benefits to such a degree while ensuring that people's rights were eroded, that the discussion would have been pointless. With trade union power now eroded to that of a domestic **** cat, the only 'lifeline' for the sake of a word, that the average hard working low paid worker has, along with sick and vulnerable people, unemployed persons et al. is the protection afforded by the legal framework issued by the EU and governing those people's rights across 30 Countries! Remove that, then sit back and watch the tories really get to work eroding your rights and civil liberties![/p][/quote]I considered replying to you but to be honest I think you would have simply drowned me in another wall of text. Have a look at this article on the "Gish Gallop" to see what I mean. http://rationalwiki. org/wiki/Gish_gallop Pinza-C55
  • Score: 0

12:34am Mon 17 Feb 14

steerchaser says...

The music,fashion and film making industries in this country are very well respected in other countries and Tim will be okay.thanks tim
The music,fashion and film making industries in this country are very well respected in other countries and Tim will be okay.thanks tim steerchaser
  • Score: 4

12:38am Mon 17 Feb 14

steerchaser says...

To go off on a tangent..did others see the channel 4 news programme where a reporter discovered that in some areas up to one third of job centre 'apparent jobs' did not exist? I felt so sorry for all the people having their motivation flattened by such goings on....
To go off on a tangent..did others see the channel 4 news programme where a reporter discovered that in some areas up to one third of job centre 'apparent jobs' did not exist? I felt so sorry for all the people having their motivation flattened by such goings on.... steerchaser
  • Score: 4

11:08am Mon 17 Feb 14

Thecynic says...

steerchaser wrote:
To go off on a tangent..did others see the channel 4 news programme where a reporter discovered that in some areas up to one third of job centre 'apparent jobs' did not exist? I felt so sorry for all the people having their motivation flattened by such goings on....
I missed that but would have liked to have seen it.
It comes as no surprise to me. A while ago when I had the misfortune to be unemployed for a time, I did a bit of research on the 'official' job vacancies, mainly because at that time they were insisting that the unemployed used their system for jobsearch. (probably because they wasted millions on it and it wasn't really fit for purpose?? but that's another story)

Anyway my findings were this, (just for the Yorkshire region) a high percentage of the 'available' jobs actually didn't exist.

This was for several reasons, one of which was the fact that a company would advertise a job on the site, interview someone, offer them the job and then forget to cancel the job from the system.
So you would apply for the job, and get a reply that the job was taken.

Also you would get plenty jobs advertised as 'voluntary', now while these are legally and technically jobs, they are not jobs in the sense that most people who say to the unemployed 'get a job', are meaning. ie. jobs that actually pay the jobseeker so that they don't have to claim benefits. Therefore in that sense they are not 'proper' jobs at all.

Next, you have companies that advertise a job on the site, however they also contact one or more agencies in order to get someone as quickly as possible, these agencies also advertise the job on the same site, this makes it appear as though there are 'several' vacancies, where in fact there is only the one vacancy. (the most instances I personally came across was 7 incidences of the same one job advertised)

These are by no means the only instances I found of the 'Official' figures being wildly incorrect.
Taking your figures from the report as a benchmark, instead of the circa 500,000 vacancies to be shared between the 2.1 million (again questionable) unemployed jobseekers, the true figure is probably nearer 370,000 vacancies!

That still leaves a lot of unemployed people even if every job vacancy was fully filled.
[quote][p][bold]steerchaser[/bold] wrote: To go off on a tangent..did others see the channel 4 news programme where a reporter discovered that in some areas up to one third of job centre 'apparent jobs' did not exist? I felt so sorry for all the people having their motivation flattened by such goings on....[/p][/quote]I missed that but would have liked to have seen it. It comes as no surprise to me. A while ago when I had the misfortune to be unemployed for a time, I did a bit of research on the 'official' job vacancies, mainly because at that time they were insisting that the unemployed used their system for jobsearch. (probably because they wasted millions on it and it wasn't really fit for purpose?? but that's another story) Anyway my findings were this, (just for the Yorkshire region) a high percentage of the 'available' jobs actually didn't exist. This was for several reasons, one of which was the fact that a company would advertise a job on the site, interview someone, offer them the job and then forget to cancel the job from the system. So you would apply for the job, and get a reply that the job was taken. Also you would get plenty jobs advertised as 'voluntary', now while these are legally and technically jobs, they are not jobs in the sense that most people who say to the unemployed 'get a job', are meaning. ie. jobs that actually pay the jobseeker so that they don't have to claim benefits. Therefore in that sense they are not 'proper' jobs at all. Next, you have companies that advertise a job on the site, however they also contact one or more agencies in order to get someone as quickly as possible, these agencies also advertise the job on the same site, this makes it appear as though there are 'several' vacancies, where in fact there is only the one vacancy. (the most instances I personally came across was 7 incidences of the same one job advertised) These are by no means the only instances I found of the 'Official' figures being wildly incorrect. Taking your figures from the report as a benchmark, instead of the circa 500,000 vacancies to be shared between the 2.1 million (again questionable) unemployed jobseekers, the true figure is probably nearer 370,000 vacancies! That still leaves a lot of unemployed people even if every job vacancy was fully filled. Thecynic
  • Score: 1

12:18pm Tue 18 Feb 14

presstog says...

We support the NUJ strikers who are fighting to keep local jobs on local papers.
We support the NUJ strikers who are fighting to keep local jobs on local papers. presstog
  • Score: 1

12:19pm Tue 18 Feb 14

presstog says...

US-owned Newsquest is wrong to send its local news 250 miles away to be published in a factory - and we want it to think again. Keep local news local!
US-owned Newsquest is wrong to send its local news 250 miles away to be published in a factory - and we want it to think again. Keep local news local! presstog
  • Score: 1

11:15am Thu 6 Mar 14

Kevin Turvey says...

'Thecynic says...
I would suggest to you, the same as I have suggested to other friends and family members who are below 30ish years old.
Cut your ties with this Country, it is finished now, and no Government could ever restore it back to the glory days, it is finished in more ways than just financial, the fabric has been ripped out from society, carefully engineered by Governments so that now we have working class against working class. Infrastructure here is failing, (not just because of the recent storms)
Mr Hall I would suggest that you take your skills abroad, you will be treat a lot more sympathetically and with a great deal more fairness than you ever will in this country. Give your 'new' Country the benefit of your skills and let them reap the benefits of your success.’


You do not know how right you are!

There is a serious problem of brain drain in this country at the present with talent, skill, doers, those looking for more and retirees with money leaving.

Unfortunately for those staying they are being replaced with unskilled easily controlled automatons.

The government loves those as they are very easily controlled – bread and circuses.
'Thecynic says... I would suggest to you, the same as I have suggested to other friends and family members who are below 30ish years old. Cut your ties with this Country, it is finished now, and no Government could ever restore it back to the glory days, it is finished in more ways than just financial, the fabric has been ripped out from society, carefully engineered by Governments so that now we have working class against working class. Infrastructure here is failing, (not just because of the recent storms) Mr Hall I would suggest that you take your skills abroad, you will be treat a lot more sympathetically and with a great deal more fairness than you ever will in this country. Give your 'new' Country the benefit of your skills and let them reap the benefits of your success.’ You do not know how right you are! There is a serious problem of brain drain in this country at the present with talent, skill, doers, those looking for more and retirees with money leaving. Unfortunately for those staying they are being replaced with unskilled easily controlled automatons. The government loves those as they are very easily controlled – bread and circuses. Kevin Turvey
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree