Job Centre have a minimum sanctions quota. Disgusting.

[Alf Bentley]

If you think you're good on a computer and enjoy working on a computer then applying for a job as a programmer seems perfectly reasonable to me. Not all programming jobs are particularly complex. They may have been looking for someone who was simply capable of learning a few basic programming skills. The employer may have had a suitable role even if bot exactly as advertised. The employer may have been able to offer useful advice. The candidate may have learned from the experience, by displaying his desire he may have got his foot in the door. The job centre set him up with a fantastic opportunity where he had nothing whatsoever to lose, and what did he do, "oooh no, no way, can't do that, never done it before, can't do it, can't do this one, next, no can't do it, never done it can't do it."

You really do go to ridiculous extents, "reinventing" the facts to suit your prejudices.

If the vacancy had said "Trainee programmer required, must be PC literate, no programming experience required", I expect my mate would have applied for it - but it was a vacancy for an experienced programmer, so he thought his time was better spent pursuing other jobs that he had some chance of getting. So it wasn't "a fantastic opportunity" and he did have something to lose - his time, better spent doing training, temp P/T & voluntary work and applying for jobs he had a chance of getting.

He had also had several years worth of experience applying for jobs, getting the occasional interview, being given advice etc.

Plus, he wasn't instructed to apply for that particular vacancy; it was only raised as a (poor) suggestion, which the staff member then presumably used to hit her target for getting claimants' benefits suspended.

Good luck when you take up that fantastic opportunity to apply to be head of NASA. I'm sure you'll also have nothing to lose and might get a foot in the door by applying for any forthcoming brain surgeon vacancies...

More seriously, up and down the country people in genuine need of help are being bullied so that Jobcentres can meet targets and official unemployment figures can be reduced....while the minority of professional scroungers laugh and jump through the hoops to get their handouts.

[Rincewind]

The trouble with applying for any job is that the employer receives more applications so can take less time to look through the many applications that they receive.Take that and the fact they cannot be specific in the ads they have far too many unsuitable applicants so just look at part of CV's before binning them.

[davieG]

The trouble with applying for any job is that the employer receives more applications so can take less time to look through the many applications that they receive.Take that and the fact they cannot be specific in the ads they have far too many unsuitable applicants so just look at part of CV's before binning them.

Which I've done plenty of times, nothing is more irritating than having a massive pile of applicants and having to bin so many because they don't meet the minimum requirements or are simply badly completed as I found with so many from the now defunct Connexions.

[MooseBreath]

You really do go to ridiculous extents, "reinventing" the facts to suit your prejudices.

If the vacancy had said "Trainee programmer required, must be PC literate, no programming experience required", I expect my mate would have applied for it - but it was a vacancy for an experienced programmer, so he thought his time was better spent pursuing other jobs that he had some chance of getting. So it wasn't "a fantastic opportunity" and he did have something to lose - his time, better spent doing training, temp P/T & voluntary work and applying for jobs he had a chance of getting.

He had also had several years worth of experience applying for jobs, getting the occasional interview, being given advice etc.

Plus, he wasn't instructed to apply for that particular vacancy; it was only raised as a (poor) suggestion, which the staff member then presumably used to hit her target for getting claimants' benefits suspended.

Good luck when you take up that fantastic opportunity to apply to be head of NASA. I'm sure you'll also have nothing to lose and might get a foot in the door by applying for any forthcoming brain surgeon vacancies...

More seriously, up and down the country people in genuine need of help are being bullied so that Jobcentres can meet targets and official unemployment figures can be reduced....while the minority of professional scroungers laugh and jump through the hoops to get their handouts.

Well that's his side of the story anyway. We all know how people who accept hand outs have a tendency towards excuses and blaming others. Not saying that's the case with your mate. But certainly for a lot of them it is.

But this isn't about individual cases as I've said before. There is no one size fits all policy. There will always be the odd individual who seems to have been treated unfairly. You need to accept that as part of the game and concentrate on getting the most bang for your buck.

Always focussing on making sure "everybody is ok" is why we've got such a generous benefit system in the first place. Unfortunately it comes at the expense of focussing on the positives and making steps forward and ultimately drags everyone down with it. That's why we need a strong government who will stop pandering to every sob story they come across and get on with making tough sacrifices for the greater good.

[leicsmac]

Well that's his side of the story anyway. We all know how people who accept hand outs have a tendency towards excuses and blaming others. Not saying that's the case with your mate. But certainly for a lot of them it is.

But this isn't about individual cases as I've said before. There is no one size fits all policy. There will always be the odd individual who seems to have been treated unfairly. You need to accept that as part of the game and concentrate on getting the most bang for your buck.

Always focussing on making sure "everybody is ok" is why we've got such a generous benefit system in the first place. Unfortunately it comes at the expense of focussing on the positives and making steps forward and ultimately drags everyone down with it. That's why we need a strong government who will stop pandering to every sob story they come across and get on with making tough sacrifices for the greater good.

Surely it is better that everyone is sure to be OK and some people play the system than no people playing the system but some people in genuine need of help get none?

As our legal system (better a thousand guilty men go free before an innocent man is convicted) is based on the same moral structure.

[Alf Bentley]

Well that's his side of the story anyway. We all know how people who accept hand outs have a tendency towards excuses and blaming others. Not saying that's the case with your mate. But certainly for a lot of them it is.

But this isn't about individual cases as I've said before. There is no one size fits all policy. There will always be the odd individual who seems to have been treated unfairly. You need to accept that as part of the game and concentrate on getting the most bang for your buck.

Always focussing on making sure "everybody is ok" is why we've got such a generous benefit system in the first place. Unfortunately it comes at the expense of focussing on the positives and making steps forward and ultimately drags everyone down with it. That's why we need a strong government who will stop pandering to every sob story they come across and get on with making tough sacrifices for the greater good.

It is indeed inevitable that the odd individual will be treated unfairly under any system, through error or whatever. This is different, It is a case of particular categories of people being deliberately targeted for unfair treatment. Not because they are the ones defrauding the system (within bounds, such targeting would be fair), but because they are the easiest to trip up and to trick, even if they've done nothing morally wrong at all. People who are unfamiliar with the system because they're newly unemployed, people who have some problem with literacy, intelligence or mental health, or people like my mate who are a bit unworldly.

That it not only morally despicable, it will inevitably also be financially detrimental to the public purse in the long run, as many of those people will end up needing more expensive public care through homelessness, hospitalisation or criminality, or will cause knock-on problems when often hard-pressed families end up having to feed and house them.

Anyone can end up unemployed through no fault of their own (could be you or me tomorrow, Moose) and may need benefits for a time, while they find a new job (particularly in tough economic times), retrain for a different occupation or whatever. It is both humane and in the public interest for them to get the help that they need. Of course, the long-term unemployed may have more complex problems (illiteracy, lack of skills, health issues, drug issues etc.) that may take longer to address - and may require some compulsion in some cases....and downright piss-takers do need to be targeted and penalised.

But picking on the most vulnerable instead of the fraudsters is neither just nor efficient. What next? Reduce NHS costs by tricking dementia patients into signing hospital discharge forms?!?

[MooseBreath]

Surely it is better that everyone is sure to be OK and some people play the system than no people playing the system but some people in genuine need of help get none?

As our legal system (better a thousand guilty men go free before an innocent man is convicted) is based on the same moral structure.

Everyone is not ok. There is no one size fits all policy which ensures everyone is ok.

[leicsmac]

Everyone is not ok. There is no one size fits all policy which ensures everyone is ok.

That's true, and there's something in what you say regarding a system that big is always going to have imperfections. But of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to attain as close to a perfect system as we can get. And every case like the one the OP detailed should be a reason for keeping working at it. At the moment, there is too much bureaucracy, too much ticking of boxes. And what is the point in someone applying for a job he has absolutely no chance of getting and doesn't fit the requirements for? It's pointless. A more focussed approach is required.

In any case, I've made my view regarding benefits and employment many times on here. Mass employment for a living wage works, and real incentives need to be given to companies to hire people. Mass unemployment is the true drain on the economy right now - it makes people stop spending and the money stop circulating, and more money has to be outgoing for benefits just to keep people afloat. Get people working - give them their self-pride through supporting their family back.

[Leicfox]

Table emerges after ministers deny existence of targets for sanctioning benefit claimants over jobseeking efforts...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/28/jobcentre-scorecard-areas-stopping-benefits