to wonder why the papers haven't got this on the front page?

[LittleHouseOnTheShelf]

www.thecanary.co/2016/04/29/cameron-rocked-by-major-defeat-just-days-before-election-time/

Workfare refers to all of the programmes which are mandatory, long term and paid less than minimum wage. The Government’s Work Experience Programme, Sector Based Work Academies, Community Action Programme, Mandatory Work Activity scheme and The Work Programme all fall into this category. Under these Workfare programmes, unemployed people have been forced in long term, full time work for no more than the benefits to which they are entitled as citizens.

Workfare was ruled illegal in 2013. But instead of complying with the orders of the court, the government has continued to appeal the decision – suffering defeat after defeat. And now, the highest court in the land has told Cameron’s government that its workfare schemes are illegal, and they must pay back benefit claimants who were forced into these unlawful programmes.

[Tiopyn]

It doesn't fit in with their narrative. Most of the main papers are very much in the camp of demonising all those on benefits.

[TheoriginalLEM]

^That

[Capricorn76]

Oh so that's why the Ken Livingstone story is so big...

[0phelia]

Fucksaaake.

No mention of this in the mainstream at all is there.

LittleHouse I'm sharing this on my FB and Twitter, thanks for posting.

[Buckinbronco]

This is brilliant news

[BadDoGooder]

What Toipyn said.

I'm so glad about that, workfare is a fucking disgrace to this country. Slave wages for working for Tescos, while demonised in the press, and Tescos profits shoot through the roof. Fuck that.

[LilacSpunkMonkey]

I've seen it on Facebook because I follow a group who hold demonstrations against workfare and they have been campaigning against it for awhile.

The Job Centre tried to send me on Workfare a couple of years back, despite the fact that I was actually working! They wanted me to give up my paid hours and go and do labour somewhere, full time, for £70 a week. It's disgusting that this was ever legal.

Yet there will be people popping up to say that benefits claimants are workshy and should just do the workfare.

[thecatfromjapan]

Thanks for flagging this up.

[SimpleSimonThePieMan]

Forcing jobseekers to work at below min wage is clearly out of order but no reason they shouldn't be forced to work the the number of hours that correspond to their Jobseeker's Allowance at minimum wage. After all, it's easier to get a job when you're in work, good for references and good to be getting up and going to work.

[Birdsgottafly]

""but no reason they shouldn't be forced to work the the number of hours that correspond to their Jobseeker's Allowance at minimum wage. ""

Why should they be paid Min Wage, if the role that they are going into, is paid more.

This will only add upto nine hours a week, maximum.

As for adding to a CV, it depends on your previous experience and qualifications, most people would be better off in Voluntary Work.

In areas of high unemployment, people with vast experience and good qualifications are on JSA.

[eaglesreach]

It was a typical tory policy once again proving their hatred of the poor. So pleased they've been forced to abandon it. The worse thing is with this government......they don't even try to hide their hatred.

[GhostofFrankGrimes]

Dead cat strategy.

I doff my cap to Sir Lynton.

[limitedperiodonly]

Forcing jobseekers to work at below min wage is clearly out of order but no reason they shouldn't be forced to work the the number of hours that correspond to their Jobseeker's Allowance at minimum wage. After all, it's easier to get a job when you're in work, good for references and good to be getting up and going to work.

Unfortunately, I think lots of people would side with the Government against these out-of-touch, unelected judges who concern themselves with trivia like the law

[Theoretician]

I have skimmed a Guardian article, after googling "poundland case", and I think the issue is not what the linked article says. The court has not said that it is illegal to make people work for benefits. It has said it is illegal to sanction them for refusing that work if you don't explain properly in advance the consequence of not taking the work, i.e. if you don't warn them they will be sanctioned.

When this was first decided, the government introduced retrospective legislation to make their lack of adequate warning legal. However retrospective legislation is generally not allowed by human rights law, understandably, so that has now been chucked out as well. (The exception to it not being allowed is in the area of tax, so it does sometimes happen.)

So in future, in fact I'd guess from 2013 when they tightened the law, the government can make people work, and can sanction them. All this case means is that people who were sanctioned before then can get their cut benefits refunded.

Not sure I'm right, but that's my take.

[LumpySpacedPrincess]

The media is right wing and doesn't report stories like this.

People need to Wake. Up.

[emilybohemia]

well done for highlighting this

[GhostofFrankGrimes]

People need to Wake. Up.

but its so warm and cosy wrapped up in right wing propaganda and ignorance.

[Room101isWhereIUsedToLive]

No. Yanbu.

[SarahVineTory]

I too saw this on FB as I follow protest groups too.

[funniestWins]

Yet there will be people popping up to say that benefits claimants are workshy and should just do the workfare.

Not all of them, but if they can work why shouldn't people do workfare? If they aren't workshy then SimpleSimon hit the nail on the head.

It was a typical tory policy once again proving their hatred of the poor

Not the poor, the workshy.

[Rebecca2014]

Oh my its crazy that the media isn't reporting this...shows how biased they are.

[caroldecker]

Not a legal person, but the report states:

Appeal judges ruled on Friday that when Parliament enacted the 2013 Act in order to retrospectively "validate those sanctions" it was "successful in doing so as a matter of English law".
But Lord Justice Underhill, announcing the ruling of the court, said: "But we have also held - upholding the decision of the High Court - that in the cases of those claimants who had already appealed against their sanctions the Act was incompatible with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights."
He added: "Under the Human Rights Act that 'declaration of incompatibility' does not mean that the 2013 Act ceases to be effective as regards those claimants; it is up to the Government, subject to any further appeal, to decide what action to take in response.

My reading is only specific people who were in the previous case can claim, not anyone else.

[SarahVineTory]

The people Vs The government... is the protest group I follow.

[SaucyJack]

The DM's headline article this morning was a mock agony aunt letter written by Jude Law- with a photo of every woman they knew of that he'd ever done the squelchy with.

One couldn't make it up.

[ArrestedDevelopment]

funniestwins
'Why shouldn't people do workfare?'
Because companies are getting cheap labour and then reducing their proper staff relying on workfare candidates making it harder for people to get actual paid work.

There was a case of a man who got made redundant from his job along with others and was actually sanctioned for not attending workfare doing his same job as he was furious that his company had deliberately made people redundant and we're accepting workfare to do the exact same job!