To wonder what the govt has planned to punish those NOT on benefits?

[Glitterknickaz]

News link

This is not the first time cutting benefits has been suggested as a punishment. How are the government proposing to punish parents who don't tackle truancy efficiently that aren't on benefits exactly? Just like the assertion that the rioters should lose benefits, yes because they were ALL on benefits weren't they?

Once again the government fuels the totally untrue daily mail esque belief that all of society's ills lie at the feet of benefits claimants. Apparently they are the root of all evil, eh?

Not one of the policies publicised has said what would happen to those who do not claim benefits.

Money designed for basic sustenance should not be removed imo. At the end of the day it is the children that will suffer from these measures.

I thinks that's why HowlingBitch this country quite rightly gives money and not food vouchers -

It's strange that we give really good benefits on the one hand, but the wrong type of jogging bottoms and your names off the list

For what it's worth I think the system we've got the positives far outweigh the costs - the country is so damn stable considering everything that's been thrown at it in the past ten years.

I think it's admirable that the system does it's damnedest to include everyone - even if your a work shy useless fuckwit of an individual - doesn't mean your kids are necessarily condemned to the same fate, i'd put my hand in my pocket for that. God knows I was that kid.

meditrina re Child benefit;

If you are on benefits ie the set amount the gov says you needs to live on, however much child benefit you get is then deducted off the weekly set amount.

So having a fine deducted from your child benefit will have more of an impact on someone on benefits than someone who is not.

Any rise in the amounts of child benefit are always then deducted from income support/JSA.

I mentioned CB, because that is the specific benefit being mentioned in the wider debate on this. You do not have to be receiving other benefits to be included in the method of collecting a fine by via CB.

At present people - whatever their source of income - can be fined (whether for permitting truancy, or for other offences). This proposal is not extending the existing punitive element of imposing a fine, and fines for permitting truancy began some time ago.

Or are you saying the existing situation is wrong, and those on benefits should always be exempt from a penalty when that penalty is a fine?

I very much doubt she was trying to say this. The point is that people on benefits are not children who should have their allowance cut when they are naughty.

In most cases the reason for truancy goes far deeper than the parents. People who are not on benefits will more than likely have a chance to explain themselves and their children to the courts. The people who are on benefits will not have that option.

HowlingBitch personally I find the majority of issues children have lead back to poor parenting and

The fact their parents are too lazy. Work is probably just the start of these children's woes

It s your duty as a parent too get your child to school if if means marching them up to the school taking them into form and handing them over to the teacher then so be it

If it means sitting outside the school gates to make sure they don't leave then so be it

Lets face it their not working so have nothing else to do

meditrina

No thats not what im saying at all

You mentioned CB, my understanding of how you said it was that you were implying it was only CB [universal] and not 'welfare' benefits as per what the OP said.

My last post was explaining that CB despite being universal is welfare benefits if you are on them as the full amount of CB is deducted from the set levels, it isnt 'extra'

So again my point is this plan will affect parents on benefits more.

It s your duty as a parent too get your child to school if if means marching them up to the school taking them into form and handing them over to the teacher then so be it

Ah, So simplistic. What if you are a single parent and have 4 children. Worked everyday until you found out the fourth has a sever psychical/mental disability and had to go on benefits? You try everyday to get all your children to school but your eldest makes this very hard and skips school alot?

Or you are a SAHM and have 3 kids, 2 under 4 and your DP is recently laid off. You cannot get a job because you cannot afford childcare and you DH is at job interviews most days, The oldest fights, screams and shouts every morning that you just cannot cope anymore and keep her off because your become depressed?

Life happens and people should be offered help, Not punishment.

The articles I read about this related specifically to CB emanated from Steve Hilton's, Forum and are targetted at the persisent, serial non-attenders. Under the current system parents are fined on a sliding scale dependent on their income whether income from benefits or employment+CB. Benefit claimants therefore pay a small amount over a long period.

The parents of the worst attenders rack up lots of fines - often unpaid and then get threatened with imprisonment wh virtually never happens. It's felt that these parents would be better punished by stopping CB early on in what is currently a long drawn out process. And more ?importantly be a bigger deterrent to parents who aren't getting their children to school.

Lets face it their not working so have nothing else to do

You are aware of current policy on parents of school age children and claiming benefits? ie no more income support, JSA and work programme instead? that means they wont be available to 'march them in' or 'sit outside the gates'

As the benefit that is being talked about in terms of this proposal is CB, then that is everyone other than HRTs - so that could be households with an income of £80k.

I do not agree with the "naughty children" analogy, unless you are saying that fines must never be imposed. For the "cut in benefit" is the existing system of fines with a different collection method.

Whether holding parents to account, with a punitive system of fines to back up persistent non-compliance is a good system is a separate question. It is however what currently exists. So those who permit truancy stand to forfeit some of their income already - and unpaid fines can lead (and has, I think, led) to imprisonment, which I think is far more detrimental than anything in this.

AmberLeaf yes they don't have to bloody work unless they want to and when their child turns of age they just have another so we can pay all over agin thats about the gist of what labour had my taxes paying four

Kidzrfreaky - Tax Credits MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT pay 'most' of the childcare costs - they pay UP TO 70% of your childcare, yes - but the MOST they will give you is £210 a week towards your childcare, whether you have 1 child or 10 children.

I am going back to work next week. I am a lone parent, have been for 4 months, since my Ex-p walked out on me. I have uncontrolled epilepsy - that I have not got DLA for since my renewal came up (the Tories really DO put the 'n' in cuts). My DD has Autism, she is partially deaf, she has a heart problem that requires open heart surgery when she turns 16yo (2.5 yrs from now), and she also has mild epilepsy. My DS2 also has Autism, chronic asthma that he has nearly died from 3 times, GDD and two different muscle problems.

An SN childminder for my 13yo DD will cost me £9 an hour (she cannot be left at home alone, unlike most 13yo's). After-school club for my two older ds's will cost me £18 a day each. Nursery for my 7mo baby will cost me £52 a day.

I will be WORSE OFF in work than on benefits. Yes, OK, I'm still going back to work, because I have some pride, but I wish that minimum wage was set at a LIVEABLE amount.

The answer is NOT to take money away from those on benefits - it's a shitty existance, where you don't know if you can feed and clothe your dc from one end of the week to the next. The answer is to look at the living conditions of the working POOR. And MAKE SURE that they have MORE money than those on benefits by making employers pay a decent wage. Which £5.93 an hour just bloody ISN'T.

Does this sanction include those people on TC's, OP? Because if so, and DS2 gets as ill this year as he did last year, that automatically triggers a referral to the EWO - which by the looks of it, would ALSO trigger a referral and sanctions being passed on to the DWP. How the fuck can you argue your case (i.e. being referred to DWP for sanctions because your dc is ill in hospital ) if they stop your money with no chance for you to prove your dc was ILL not truanting? The rules over that are already so draconian as to be untrue - this would just be the icing on the fucking cake.

Loudlass, Steady now, Kidzrfreaky most specifically said that ladies were NOT to argue with him or her on this point.

maypole You often post these sort of wild, hostile generalisations about parents ie 'lazy parents', 'poor parenting' etc in a very authoritative manner which isn't always terribly well-informed.

There are many complex reasons why children do not attend school.

eg child carers/anxiety about dv/parental mental health problems/school phobias/unaddressed SEN/parental LD/parental substance misuse/bullying and intimidation and many combinations with or without good parenting.

There are big differences between how a parent can compel a primary school child to attend school and a 14 yr old boy who is taller, heavier and stronger than either parent/other adults.

Many of the services designed to help these children/young people into school are no longer in existence. Until 2004, ESW/EWOs provided practical help - now they investigate school absence and recommend court action. Not what they were trained to do and not what most want to be doing.

It's not as straightforward at you insist.

HowlingBitch whatever my dd who is five is in a wheelchair so don't try the sn card with me

SN card?... What an awful thing to say and what a way to miss the point.

Loudlass sounds bad for you. Hope your new job goes well.

In a way I do agree that parents should make sure their kids get to school there is no excuse for it. No-one can excuse parents who don't manage this can they?

I expect that behind the headlines what will happen in practise is that parents of truants will still get their day in court but the fines could be taken off them at source via CB. This government will be able to class CB as benefits once it's means tested and will be a stick to beat the working/or not working poor with. I would imagine that the cases that actually get to this will be negligible so it's just hype and sounds as usual. Not worth the admin costs.

fargate, Ok just read reasons that you can excuse parents for not making sure their kids get to school. These cases must be rare though and these families need help not taken to court. A friend of mine didn't get much schooling because her mum stopped her going.

My council reports that the biggest reasons for absenteeism are children's caring responsibilities for sick or disabled parents, and children's illness.

"We are not getting value for money benefits for shit parenting
They should pull the plug on the whole thing"

I'm sure this exactly what Attlee envisioned. Value for money from the cradle to the grave. Or something.

:o

Let them die in the streets! Let we use their uneducated bodies to fertilize the grain for the worthy children! Let us be free of them!

ANd maybe if there was more support for PARENTS with disabilities, then there wouldn't be so many child carers...If your partner walks out when you are diagnosed with a disability, the DWP's computers go into meltdown - you don't fit into their neat little tick boxes, so you can't possibly exist...Because there's NO SUCH THING as a disabled lone parent caring for disabled children...

And if schools were MADE to manage chronic health conditions in their pupils more effectively, then maybe the children wouldn't have so much time off ill. Because the school cannot give a child with chronic asthma their inhaler, as it could be classed as assault. . And if that same child also has a physical disability and is UNABLE to press his inhaler to administer his medication - the school will still not do it.

If the Government is insistant on the policy of 'inclusion' (Ha!) and they want to help minimise pupils' time off on health grounds, then maybe they could start with making mainstream schools administer what can be life-saving medications so that the pupil DOESN'T get ill so often.

Maypole are you a foster carer? Im sure ive seen you on the foster carers board, or am I mistaken?

And how are the ill children's parents meant to hold DOWN a job, when they are having to go into the school 1/2/3 times a day to administer medication. I have had to wait until DS2 is nearly 8yo to consider going back to work, as until two months ago, I was having to go to the school before and after each of his PE lessons to give him his inhalers. The school will give an epi-pen to save a life, but no school seems to realise that chronic asthma CAN KILL. There was a case recently where it happened in a school.