Anyone else seen the advert for this programme which starts on channel 4 next week?

Everyone in the add are holding mugs with very large A4E signage.

I have a feeling it'll be the type of programme that may well make me want to kick the TV in

epsiode 1 ...

'Hayley Taylor's job is to persuade single mothers on benefits to go back to work.

The company she works for, A4E, which is helping to tackle the Government's target of getting 70 per cent of lone parents into paid work by 2010, is the largest welfare reform company in the world.

A4E is run by multimillionaire entrepreneur Emma Harrison, who believes her business is 'improving people's lives by getting them into work.'

Until recently, the 700,000 lone parents receiving benefit didn't have to look for work until their youngest child was 16. Soon, they must either work, or be looking for work, once their youngest child is seven.

At Doncaster A4E, Hayley runs a course called Elevate that aims to give lone parents the skills and confidence to enter the workplace and convince them they'll be better off doing so. Cameras follow her group of ten single mothers.'

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefit-busters

There was a video advert running with the sound off on the front page of this morning’s online Guardian. I didn’t pay much attention to it to be honest.

However, I was quite taken with the news this week that Arlene Phillips has been appointed by the SoS for Health as some kind of dance tsar. “Dancing should be as much a part of our daily routine as brushing our teeth” she trilled. She continued “it's surprising how easy it can be: swaying from side to side, moving forward and back but making it constant and moving the arms. That's the way to raise people's spirits, to make us all a bit healthier and happier”. Have we suddenly gone back to 1940? This country’s effin’ insane.

So there you have it.Everyone on ICB,ESA is now to have a dance focused interview (regulations to be laid soon). Not only will it get rid of all those dodgy bad backs out there (you know who you are) but dancing is also miraculously going to banish depression to the pages of history. Marvellous!

Have you seen Hayley? There's nothing behind those eyes. Absolutely nothing.

Benefit Busters... Hmmm. I share your trepidation bensup having seen the ad. It's a poorly chosen title I think, which is well chosen to gain an audience. I will be watching - with my swear box!!!

Paul you make me laugh

Tony - having read Shawn's post i'm not sure whether to watch or not - i'm not sure my blood pressure could cope with it!!

Nicky

I'm taking the optimistic view that it will present a balanced view of life on benefits and focus positively on the steps that can help people back to work which i think it is a positive ambition. For me, it is only the title that hurts at the moment becuase it reinforces the 'scrounger' image.

However, I have an idea of the image that might be presented, so nothing will surprise me.

Go on Nicky, force yerself! I'm sure we'll all chip in and buy you a new TV. But none of that bloody 40 inch plasma type mind!

How about Official error busters, now that would be far more realistic and thought provoking !!!!

Fri 14-Aug-09 12:43 PM by pete c

Perhaps somone could persuade the TV people to do a programme about welfs - any ideas for a title? Who amongst our number would be featured, any volunteers?

pete.

Anoraks Anonymous perhaps?

Cyn(ic) City

I'd volunteer!

I've been on TV before - as a Gestapo Officer in a documentary called We Can Make You Talk, which has been shown on Ch4 and Discovery.

With that experience, I'm sure I can play a fraud investigation officer...

A TV programme on Welfs - a six part documentary

episode 1 - welf phones Crisis Loans..........

episode 6 - Crisis Loans answer the phone.............

I took some time out last weekend to go watch my football team. I nearly fell off my seat in the 80th minute when the sponsors man of the match was announced.

Firstly, they clearly named the wrong player but secondly I could have sworn they said "A4E something". A swift glance at the back of my match programme stated "A4E Pathways". Ah, I thought. Must be someone local doing paths and driveways!!!

Then I actually read the programme. "A4E Pathways" as in "Pathways To Work".

It's subtle and insidious. Nothing major or national is ever done. It's always local stuff; looking good to the local community etc. Needless to say a letter of protest to my local football club advising them of where to read about some of the more intereresting aspects of their match sponsors.

I await a response.

Mike

And you thought I was joking!

See rightsnet news story “Health Secretary calls on incapacity benefit claimants to adopt healthier lifestyles” and read the press release.

from yesterday's observer ...

'A furious row has broken out over government plans to extend the "privatisation" of the job market after it emerged that two companies subject to a fraud inquiry were on the shortlist for lucrative contracts to get people with severe disabilities into work.

Recruitment companies A4e and Working Links have been shortlisted for a new programme to find work for people with long-term mental or physical needs. Both are under investigation by the Department for Work and Pensions following allegations that employees had made false claims of getting people into work.'

.... to set the recorder

'Hayley seems harsh but gets results ... “Why aren’t you all queuing up at McDonald’s, Burger King and KFC if you want a job?” the flesh-and-blood version of The League of Gentlemen’s Pauline sarcastically asks.'

Thursdays TV choice is Benefit Busters

“Why aren’t you all queuing up at McDonald’s, Burger King and KFC if you want a job?” Maybe the answer lies here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/19/unemployed-benefits-welfare-poverty-jobcentre

My colleague said someone from A4E was on GMTV this morning being "bigged" up by the presenters - apparently one of them said "we need more people like you out there."

I really don't want to watch this programme tonight but know i'm going to have to

A quick Google suggests this is hardly the first time A4E have appeared on GMTV. There is a nice cosy relationship developing between the issues du jour, GMTV and A4E. Oh, and a specific political party too. Clearly, A4E give good PR.

Can't help but think it's time the likes of NAWRA found themselves a good talking head.

I make a specific point of not watching such programmes. Heaven knows you have to switch off the brain at some point. Something tells me that I will have to watch this one however.

Oh my God.....

What a cringeworthy episode of 'benefit busters', sadly I can't wait to tune in next week for a dose of shouting and crying with laughter at this piffle. What an excellent motivator with such gifted debt advice skills and her understanding of alcoholism was astounding!

What were A4e thinking???

Well, i watched it. Shouted a few times at the telly but mainly managed to keep myself in check!!

Laughed long and loudly at "tea with Emma"

I watched last night nad took my feedback from the people sent on to the course. They (the ones that stucjk the course through) seem to have positively benefited from the course. See the comments on C4's microsite (assuming they were not written by Hayley herself.)

Firstly, I don;t see anyone else helping people like A4E does. Which leads me on to my second point.

Seems to me that A4E have served a need 'AKA exploited a gap in the market' and done it very well.

Their customer is HM Government via the DWP and not those people on benefit (I know, it's pointing out the obvious.)

A4E's fantastic success (measured purely on the size of the Chairmans pad & the international company turnover - not fraudulent claims of taking people from benefit and putting them into work) in such a short time surely indicates that there is a need for Traditional Welfare Rights services to move on and evolve into something that serves our customers and the nation?

Particularly as we (the Welfare Rights Advisers) do it so much better.

The views expressed are my own & not of my organisation or colleagues.

My earlier optimism was misguided... An unbalanced representation designed to 'big up' A4E I think.

I agree with AlteredChaos' comments.

I won't be surprised if some of those taking part, having been portrayed in such a terribly condescending light, would now be too embarrassed to leave thier homes for several days.

What do I think of Hayley? Well, I’m sure she means well but her amateur psychobabble is positively alarming and may do more harm than good to some of the more vulnerable of those who pass through her hands.

Now, I say this without equivocation. There is nothing wrong with working in Poundland. However, if her mantra that any job is better than no job holds true then she is not setting the sights of her clients very high is she. Far better if she tried to get some of those women back into education to get training and qualifications for more fulfilling and more rewarding employment in the longer term. But no, that won’t do will it. I don’t suppose A4e get paid for that does it?

Last time I looked there were plenty of people working in Kendonalds, McTuckys or poundshops with an edukashan either gaining one or having one.

My personal belief is that a work ethic will get you far further in life than any degree as one doesn't naturally follow the other.

Sometimes eduction or training isn't right for the person at that time or if it is it isn't the right time for E or T.

Tackling low aspirations is a difficult one.

The dissapointing thing is that I don't see anyone other than A4E fulfilling that role or at least looking like they're fulfilling the role.

What really got me was the poor woman who was genuinely persuaded that the DWP 'need to get their act together' because they were paying her too much on the dole contrasted to Emma's mansion and parkland, presumably largely paid for from the Social Security Budget, someone is being paid too much but I don't think it was the claimant....

Fri 21-Aug-09 03:22 PM by Gareth Morgan

I think that we ought to think about the point that John's making.

Ignoring some of the cringe making behaviour and dangerous therapy shown; is there a need for the kind of support that this is designed to offer and, if so, who should do it, how and where?

Are welfare rights workers fixated on keeping people on benefits by maximising those incomes rather than looking at other options that might be better for clients?

The review in today's Guardian was pretty good I thought.

Gareth.... Ouch

I can't talk for all of us, but I thought the point of being a welf is to ensure that people - who as you point out are often disadvantaged by lack of education, disability etc - are assisted to assert their rights.

Despite the limited amount of time I get with each client, I try to ensure that they are richer, not only through increased benefit entitlement but also the linked advantages such as free college courses, better access to support and medical services.

The day I feel the need to resort to A4e's methods of 'confidence building', is the day I quit.

Rant over.....

Chaos

Are A4E really filling a gap in the market?

Is it not more the case that a market has been created and A4E is merely one of many making a profit from it at the expense of others unable to do so? Disaster Capitalism as it has been called elsewhere.

On a practical level experience tells me that it is much easier to obtain employment once you have had some employment. However, is it not part of our role to observe that the financial implications of being forced into employment must be a consideration and, thanks to the complexity, inconsistency, inflexibility and sometimes plain stupidity of "the system" they inevitably are.

It's all very well saying you have to take the long view and maybe work through a bit of hardship to get to a better place but the reality is that shoving someone into a job in order to meet an ill-considered target for the short term commercial gain of a multinational organisation can do long term damage to the morale; finances and health of claimants.

If that isn't the baseliine of our knowledge on here then, remind me, why are we doing this again?

Mike

PS: On an even more basic level we are debating a puff piece PR programme on ITV for goodness sake!!!

The below are my personal thoughts and not those of my organisation. I'm also off work this week on annual leave, I know, bad innit?

My thoughts are those of someone who's had a number of poorly paid jobs and someone who's not had the best education or came from the best background, nor have I enjoyed the best of health for over 30years.

I didn't think it was a debate about a programme but of a sector of advice work. The pogramme is on Channel4 and has become, it seems, a hit.

Maybe this will do for A4E what that airplane programme did for easyjet? Could be we'll be watching repeats for years?

Yes a market has been created.

Much like Apple made the MP3 player market or Benz made the modern car market, he product creates the market.

In this case a budget has been assigned to a task by national government. There is one main player I thought? I maybe wrong? There are other players I know.

I don't think that there is likely to be a move away from this policy whoever the government is next time around.

I was thinking the issue is that the subject of the programme are operating in a sort of vacuum without any competition. They also provide advice.

We provide advice. Is there any reason why the Welfare Rights movement can't do a better job than those doing it already? Surely the best argument woud be that we were NFP?

Therefore we would save money, results money would be ploughed into advice services or education servcies and good advice would be on tap.

I don't know how it could work as it would take someone with a better education than me to sort those things out. Like I say I'm not that smart.

It's no good moaning about it or getting emotional (and I'm not saying anyone is - It's just this needs a rational debate) but could we do it?

I know we'd be better at it long term.

BTW I would like to point out that I also give good advice to my customers and assist them, although i prefer the word empower.

Being on annual leave last week, I stumbled across the wonderfully titled 'Saints and Scroungers' on BBC1. Can it beat 'Benefit Busters?' Oh yes.....
http://feeds.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mc0cr

link doesn't work for me .... maybe try http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mc0cr

"We provide advice. Is there any reason why the Welfare Rights movement can't do a better job than those doing it already? Surely the best argument woud be that we were NFP?"


We do consistently !!

Gareth’s comments to this thread on the 21st August touch a nerve, if you assume that people are necessarily less likely to come off social security, if we ensure they get their proper legal entitlements to benefits. I suppose that may be so in some cases, but I don’t think it is the role of my staff to promote ‘work options’. That’s what the Jobcentre is supposed to be doing, as I am sure Gareth would agree.

Both major political parties repeatedly say that people are happier in work, even if it is menial. They point out that people who work are ‘less likely to die’ if they work, but then that is also what is said about people who drive silver cars, as compared to other colours (according to the Automobile Association). Lets not be manipulated.

The real story is the social security spend, happily bubbling over £150 billion this tax year, and the need to address the assumed doomsday scenario of two non-working pensioners for each tax paying worker by 2025. Forcing people into silly jobs that won’t last is a false economy, given the inevitable consequences of disrupted income levels, HB gaps, repossessions, child poverty, and the near certainty of an eventual tango with the tax credit overpayment section.

The future must surely be about investment towards a manufacturing economy, education and training, rather than the meaningless KPIs and appeals to our dignity to be ‘workers’, not matter what that really means.

A happy weekend to you all!

Steve

"They point out that people who work are ‘less likely to die’ if they work..."

There is nothing worse than being in mind numbing, boring, seemingly never ending grind. I know because I've done it. You end up dreading going to work and you count the hours until you can get to the alehouse at the end of the shift where you can forget the misery of your daily existence. People in these positions are more likely to die early from health problems arising from overconsumption of alcohol/drugs or depression/suicide. They also have more problems with family life.

"There is nothing worse than being in mind numbing, boring, seemingly never ending grind. I know because I've done it. You end up dreading going to work and you count the hours until you can get to the alehouse at the end of the shift where you can forget the misery of your daily existence. People in these positions are more likely to die early from health problems arising from overconsumption of alcohol/drugs or depression/suicide. They also have more problems with family life."

Don't tell me your council has just gone out and got itself an LSC contract?!!

It's a bloody hard life if you don't weaken.

C'mon, we're ALL gonna die, whether we work or not. It is the one guaranteed certanity in life.

And don't forget - if you lead a virtuous life you do not actually live longer - it just feels like it.

Looks pretty straightforward to me. My job is to explain to the client what he is entitled to. And then to act in his interests, as defined not by me but by him.

For some reason, Channel 4 has pulled the 4OD episode 2, so if you missed this one, you can't watch it now. They also didn't show the scheduled repeat of episode 2 either. Seems a bit suspicious.....

I did like the programme but what made me a bit angry was sthe fact that H. did not know anything about the benefits system and working. She could've made a simple calculations and not loose the time of the mum of 4.
We encourage our clients to work go to college or Uni from our team only about 3% dont do anything simply because they are happy of their situation.


Overall I wanted to watch the second part but there seems to be a problem with it and is not available to watch on Chanel4.

Apparantly the repeat of episode 2 and on 4OD was pulled as a person on the programme complained - so Ch4 are re-editing it, then it will be repeated and put back on 4OD - Thats according to Ch4 reply to a complaint on another forum, but I cant find it again !

I saw that here:

http://newdealscandal.wordpress.com/

and the final installment -

'One of the government's targets is to shift one million people off long-term sickness benefits and get them back to work.

In Oldham, the charity Shaw Trust has won the contract to implement this policy. Sherrie Jepson, a former car saleswoman, has the job of selling the idea of employment to people who were previously considered too sick to work.

Kieron Tandy fell from a third-floor balcony while celebrating his 18th birthday in Turkey. He has metal pins in his back and has restricted mobility.

His family doctor had confirmed him as 'unfit for work' but under the new system he's examined by an independent medical examiner employed by a private health care company, which will determine whether he is fit enough to return to work. Meanwhile, Sherrie starts to try to convince Kieron that he could work if a suitable job that allowed for his condition could be found ....'

Shawn you have left people with a 'cliffhanger'!

Needless to say after Kieron's medical examination he received a decision notice advising him that he is no longer entitled to benefit. I hope he submitted an appeal.

apparently ... 'When the Flexible New Deal offices open on 5 October many of the long-term unemployed people who are obliged to attend this radically-revised job search programme may be surprised to find themselves ushered into a welcoming cafe.'

Secret Millionaire star Emma Harrison is the cheerful face behind the Flexible New Deal - guardian.co.uk

"Emma Harrison, A4e's founder and chair, bubbles with enthusiasm....."

*shudders*

I love the idea that they need to acknowledge that people will come to FND with issues and may be aggressive, so, we're going to give them caffeine

According to the article, A4e only achieved as little as 20% of their target of those being returned to work. The result of that failure seems to be that they kept the gig. Claimants who fail to meet the target set for them within FND face a benefit sanction!

Would you like a job to go with your coffee madam?
Excuse me!
You know, a job, madam!
Don’t be so impertinent. Can I have a muffin please?
A muffin! Erm, certainly, erm, chocolate chip or blueberry?
Chocolate chip.
Now about that job. There are several vacancies in Poundland I believe.
Pound what!
You know everything on sale for a pound.
Are you insane girl? Can I get a skinny latte to go?
Madam, I don’t think you appreciate the gravity of your situation. We can have your benefit stopped.
My what!
You know, your jobseekers allowance.
Do I look as though I’m on benefit?
Then why are you here?
Because Starbucks is closed stupid.
Please leave now?
Get off me! Do you know who I am. My husband is the chairman of the local Conservative party and you will be hearing from my solicitor. Good day!

Do you recognize any of these people? Where you in the vicinity? If so then please call Crimestoppers on “it is a load of old nonsense really isn’t it”. All calls will be treated in the strictest confidence. These people are dangerous and should not be approached by members of the public under any circumstances. Remember, this kind of crime is becoming increasingly common so don’t have nightmares. Sleep tight and nighty night!

Sorry to be "off message" here Shawn.
I saw Kieron's programme appearance, and saw no reason why he shouldn't be available for any work/training which doesn't involve physical exertion which affects his back. JSA was definitely the correct benefit for him, not ESA. His atitude was negative and obstructive full of self pity and "woe is me".

Hmm, can't help but think that it's falling into the trap really.

You appear to be attributing a personality issue to a claimant and then judging them on that. TV programmes hardly paint the full picture. Not hard to believe that the person in question actually had something to feel sorry about and that what appears to be "woe is me" is actually a manifestation of understandable mental health issues?

Incidentally, if you know of a job that involves no physical exertion could you please provide an example. I've yet to discover one.

I take your point Mike. My post was made within the limited view offered in the programme, i realise it may not be the full picture.

But to continue as devil's advocate, probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of people with back conditions carry out some form of work, and want to work within their limits. I have a cervical C3/4 fused and lumbar fuse disc condition.

These conditions do not mean people should be consigned to the scrap heap of benefits culture, and have any any hope of self respect removed. Most chronic illness are managed but have constraints within which people can play a full role in their own development. Kieron himself said he wanted to work.

People like Kieron need support and encouragement to look at their situation in the most positive light. I don't think at his young age, sending in sick notes, and sitting brooding at home will help him too much.

Again I appreciate the limited view possibly displayed in the programme.

I feel we watched a different programme - i never felt like Keiron was negative or obstructive - he said that if he could find a job that didn't involve physical exertion then he'd do it.

Also his Dad commented at one point that he sometimes has to lift him out of bed when his back "goes" and he cannot move without help.

Seems to me he had quite a severe problem and i was surprised when he failed his medical - you could actually see his back sort of pop out - really hope he did appeal.

I take your point also John. People should not be thrown on the scrap heap but then finding them fit for work when their time out of the labour market has stripped them of experience and confidence without having a substantial structure of support in place does exactly that. That's why so many of us struggle with the privatisation of this function. It simply doesn't provide the quality provided.

... but your post illustrated a key point. We all come to the table with our biases and prejudices if that is not too strong a word.

With all due respect to you and your health I'm sure we all value and respect the insight but there is a danger of falling into what one might call the "tribunal wing member" trap.

There are a great many excellent wing members on tribunals with great insight and knowledge to bring from their own experience. Equally, there are a significant minority who tend to bring to the table an attitude of "well, if I can get here and do this then what's your problem?". Judgmental bias and applying general information to a specific scenario rather than assessing the individual merits is what results.

While we are on the subject of A4E has anyone had any specific experience of the service they provide?

A local advice service which primarily deals with clients with Mental ill health tell me that they have had cause for concern about A4E's professional practice and the way they conduct their interviews with claimants and I wondered if this was widespread.

On a lighter note have you noticed that if you type A4E and don't release the shift key you get A$E - how appropriate!