OK, Here's How the Legal System has to Work...

Yesterday Bill Roach was cleared of the allegations of sexual assault that had been brought against him. I'm not a legal expert. I have no clue as to the details of this case as I didn't even really follow it on the news so I don't feel qualified to comment on the verdict or trial. I am, however, a resident of the United Kingdom and therefore I do have a right to comment on the reaction I saw last night.

 

The Twitter search function is completely useless so I couldn't find the tweets I read last night that made me so angry to quote so this is probably going to read a bit like story time. But please bear with me. There is a point. Someone re-tweeted a tweet into my time line calling the women who'd brought the complaints against Roache 'disgusting', 'liars', 'the worst kind of people', 'whores' etc. I clicked through to the hashtag and saw that this tweeter was not alone in their feelings.

 

Because Roache was found innocent it seemed OK to declare open season on the prosecution. Clearly they had to be lying (and 'money grabbing' to boot, although I never found an explanation for this). And because they were lying they themselves should go to prison, have their right to anonymity removed and probably whipped through the streets.

 

THIS CANNOT BE HOW A LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS!

 

How anyone can think it is alright to punish people who bring unsuccessful cases to court is staggering. Can you imagine what kind of a world we would live in if that were the case? The only people who would report a crime would be those who were certain of the verdict going in their favour. It would be a tiny minority who had the power and influence to ensure cases were ruled the way they wanted them to be. Everyone else would be terrified to make a complaint in case they themselves were prosecuted. It would be an outrageous way to conduct things. It wouldn't just leave the most vulnerable amongst us without access to the justice system, it would leave damn near all of us without it.

 

That, and there is a reason it is called 'not guilty' rather than 'innocent'. It means the jury didn't feel the case had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It doesn't meant it didn't happen (although I feel I should point out it also doesn't mean it did, and Roache may very well be innocent. I just don't know). For what it's worth I think this should be how it works. Any doubt and the jury should go with 'not guilty', but that's a rant for another time. My point is these women could have been telling the truth. A 'not guilty' verdict does not automatically mean the prosecution were lying and it's not up to random upstarts on Twitter to decide that they are.

 

Incidentally, I noticed a lot of people last night railing against the CPS for bringing the case to trial. This also baffled me. If every case the CPS brought to trial went in favour of the prosecution what would be the point of the trial? It also irked me that these people assumed the CPS 'hadn't done their job'. Who are you, disgruntled avatar, to tell the CPS how to do their job?

 

The other thing that really made my blood boil is that this was a sexual assault trial. The CPS has recently been criticised for the dwindling numbers of such cases that they refer to the courts. That suggests to me that this would not have gone forward had it not been felt the case was pretty robust. 

 

And now we come to the delightful misogyny these views betray. 'The worst type of people', 'whores', 'money grabbing sluts'. Yet again the myth that being accused of rape or sexual assault it worse than being raped or sexually assaulted. That, my friends, is cast iron bullshit. It must be awful to be accused of such a serious crime if you haven't done it, but it's a whole lot worse to have to life with the aftermath of rape and sexual assault (that, and regardless of what idiots may say, false rape allegations are pretty damn rare). Yet we seem to live in a culture where it's acceptable, even expected, that women in these cases are not believed. That doesn't hold for any other crime, and it is not OK. I can't help but feel these women would not be vilified to the same extent had Roache been cleared of stealing their handbags. Also, I think we can see from the aftermath of Ched Evans' guilty verdict, they wouldn't have been treated any differently had Roache been found guilty.

 

As for naming the women involved....just read this post at Sian and Crooked Rib because it explains the reasons why those who report rape and sexual assault should remain anonymous far more eloquently than I could. 

 

In short, random angry people baying for the blood of women who may not even have done anything wrong, get the fuck over yourselves.      

Dying for a Biscuit; The Tragic Story of James Best

During the riots that broke out in August 2011 a man named James Best walked past an already looted bakery in Croydon, went in and took a gingerbread man. His actions were probably illegal but, given other events happening that day, seem somewhat small fry. This, however, was not the view taken by Croydon magistrates court. They remanded him in custody to await sentence as part of the ‘fast track justice’ that kicked in after the riots subsided and the fires were put out. Once held in prison he died of a heart attack believed to have been brought on by over exercising.

Best was ill, both mentally and physically. He suffered from Crohn’s disease, arthritis and asthma. He had also recently been sectioned under the Mental Health Act as it was felt he was a danger to himself. He was a vulnerable man who made a daft decision, but one that no decent thinking human being could think was dangerous, or even morally objectionable. He was not cared for as someone with his health concerns should have been. He was overlooked at a time when prisons and police stations were full to bursting with people who had committed only minor offences. They were being kept there as an examples. The government could not address the resentment and sense of disenfranchisement that was at the heart of the riots, but they could try and look hard and order lots of people locked up.

An inquest into James Best’s death had now been called.

During the riots everyone panicked. For those caught in it I can only imagine the terror. I do count myself lucky that there were no riots in the city I was living in at the time. However, no amount of fear, no amount of uncertainty can excuse the death of a vulnerable man in the care of the state. During that restless August cases were rushed through and sentences handed down quickly. The government was adamant that they would show the disobedient population who was boss. As a result a man died. No one cared that he was ill, they just wanted to illustrate what happens when you get caught up in a publicity stunt such as the handling of the rioters.

Had Best stolen a gingerbread man during any other week of the year it is unlikely he would even have been taken to court, especially in light of his health issues. This is a truly tragic example of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No explanation about how busy the police were at that time will suffice. If they were that busy they should have been focussing on those individuals who were actually posing a danger to people, not just those who felt a bit peckish. I don’t want to think of the British justice system as one that would not give an individual a proper, fair consideration, in any circumstance.

How can the system that let James Best die pass judgment on the rest of us? He should not have been in that prison, and even if he should have, he should not have been treated as he was. This is the worst outcome of the riots, the disregard for the freedoms, rights and lives of individuals. This is a system trying to prove a point as to how righteous it is by coming down too hard on people who haven’t done anything wrong. A man died for no good reason and that has destroyed their moral authority and undermined the entire justice system.

What's Worse than Being Called a Bigot?

Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps being told that your relationship is worth less than a heterosexual one? Maybe being told that just by wanting to show a commitment to the person you love you are undermining the marriage if millions of people, your friends, family, parents, co-workers etc. Or being told that just wanting your relationship to be given the same name and recognition as others is destroying our culture might be considered by some over sensitive souls to be a little perturbing.

Yesterday the House of Commons passed a bill allowing same sex couples to get married, enjoy all the same rights as a heterosexual couple and call it a marriage. I wrote that I was in support of this motion and explained why. I was therefore happy and relieved last night when I heard that MPs had voted in favour of the bill with a sizeable majority. I thought that this was a step in the right direction. This was a public acknowledgment that a same sex relationship has the same worth as a heterosexual one.

But then today started and I woke up to a backlash. I understand people who opposed the bill voicing their disappointment. Had things gone the other way I would do the same, but this was different. This was displaying a horrific double standard coupled with a juvenile sense of entitlement. These are the people who were complaining that they had been called ‘bigotted’, ‘prejudiced’ and ‘homophobic’ over their opposition to the bill.

To start I would like to state that I think opposing the bill was categorically homophobic. I saw it as denying people rights just because they weren’t straight. It seemed like a fairly clear cut example of homophobia to me. However, I understand that this is an emotive word and people don’t like to be called it. My response to that is simple; if you don’t want to be called homophobic stop saying homophobic things, and if someone says you are being homophobic and you think you’re not ask them why. You might get a bit of an education.

But what I found truly mind boggling was the victimised mindset of these people. They felt so offended that they were called these things. They were nervous of speaking their opinions in case someone did something awful like ask them if they thought that sounded a bit prejudiced. Somehow the thought has never occurred to them that what they were saying was causing offense. It really never penetrated their victim complexes that the person you’re just told shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they happened to fall in love with the ‘wrong’ gender might be a bit upset. Oh no, we couldn’t possibly offend their precious sensibilities. Their right to hold opinions that see some people as having less worth than others trumps the right of the person whose just been told their an abomination for being gay.

If you want to be homophobic I can’t stop you. You have every right to think that, but, for fucks sake, learn to take it when someone tries to engage you as to why they find your views insulting and offensive. You are not the only injured party here. How about a little bit of mutual respect in this? The hypocrisy and double standard of this viewpoint is staggering.

Then there were the ones who decided they were part of the ‘silent majority’. This is, according to this opinion poll (and the ones discussed in this polling report), quite clearly bollocks. And even if they are part of some oppressed 51% this isn’t something to really be that concerned with if you’re not in a same sex relationship, because it doesn’t really affect you. Alright, so a few more people will be legally described as ‘married’ but, honestly, how does this impact upon existing marriages? Really? 

This comes back to a theme we’ve seen a lot recently in different contexts. Being called a racist is ‘the worst thing possible’ (what about being beaten up for being black?). Being called a rapist ‘destroys lives’ (what about people who are abused, sexually assaulted and raped?). Having your views challenged isn’t really that bad in the grand scheme of things, so get some fucking perspective. Your right to speak goes hand in hand with my right to challenge. That is freedom of speech. Many people who complain about this seem to really like that concept and bang on about it a lot.

Keep saying homophobic things and I will call you homophobic. Simple as.

The Charming Face of Homophobia and Heteronormativity

David Davies has said some pretty eyebrow raising things recently. He claimed that ‘most parents would prefer their children to be not be gay’ (which was then replied to by several witty individuals that the truth was most people would rather their children were gay than a Tory MP. I know my parents certainly would). Following this he decided to do an interview with the Guardian, presumable to set the record straight. Said article was published yesterday and, as I sat with my Bailey’s coffee preparing for a good old knees up with the in laws, I read it. I was left almost speechless at how someone can seem to be completely unaware of how offensive they were being.

Davies spent the majority of the interview (as was described by Decca Aitkenhead) squirming, looking flustered and apologetic and muttering that it really wasn’t his intention to cause offensive. He bleated that he didn’t understand this world, it was different and confusing to the one he’d grown up in and, really, he was just an endearingly bumbling fool who meant no harm. Kind of like a Welsh Boris Johnson, and, just like the original BoJo, despite his attempts at a cuddly image, so much of what he said wound me up.

I’m left with two possibilities. Either Davies is genuinely that clueless, in which case I will be kindly pointing out to him that the flimsy excuses he’s been hiding behind do not stop his views being extremely troubling and damaging for many people, or he is using it to try and dig himself out of the hole those comments dropped him in.

So, please allow me to take a systematic look at the things Davies got wrong.

"But I suppose, at a certain level, I see heterosexual sex as being – and it's probably the wrong word to use – but the norm. I think it's reasonable to say that the vast majority of people are not gay[….]I just worry if children are going to be taught that [heterosexuality] isn't necessarily the norm, and that you can carry on doing all sorts of other things, are we going to have a situation where the teacher's saying, 'Right, this is straight sex, this is gay sex, feel free to choose, it's perfectly normal to want to do both. And you know, why not try both out?' I mean, are we going to have that?”

This is the attitude that makes young non-heterosexual people feel scared, lonely and ostracized; the idea, still rampant in our society, that heterosexual sex is ‘the norm’. Also, I have never understood why there is any cause for concern over discussing homosexual sex. If a young person is not attracted to the same sex no amount of discussion of homosexual sex will alter that. There’s also an argument to be made that young people should be encouraged to explore their sexuality safely and in an informed way.

The sentence ‘right, this is straight sex, this is gay sex, feel free to choose, it’s perfectly normal to do both’ sounds like a fantastic way to approach sex education. If sex education covers pleasure and intimacy as part of sex it can quite easily then go on to discuss lesbian and gay sexual acts and relationships. For young gay and bisexual kids struggling with their sexuality such frank discussions could be a tremendous comfort.

Davies, however, doesn’t think that changing sex education like this would necessarily be a good idea. He cites the example of a friend he knew at school who came out as gay at 16 but, when Davies met up with him aged 20, he had settled down with a woman. Based on this one anecdote Davies seems to have been put off the idea that young people should be able to experiment and try things to see what works for them. Aitkenhead points out, as noted above, that if young people have no same sex desire sex education is unlikely to change that. Davies mumbles about worries concerning how much detail will be gone into, and when Aitkenhead explains that no amount of discussion of lesbian sex would have turned her younger self into a lesbian he decides ‘it’s different for girls’. On to the next bit of problematic drivel;

"But you're a lady, you're a woman, so you wouldn't have felt quite the same way. I mean, at school the girls all went out and bought Erasure without any issue." He's being perfectly serious. But what about the lesbians in my class – what would have helped them? "Oh, I don't know what they went out and bought." No, I mean what about them feeling confused and excluded? "I wish there was some way round this that meant they didn't feel excluded, I really do."

Somehow women are not just different to men but they don’t need to be shown the same level of concern. The flippancy of how he discusses these young women in comparison to the young men mentioned above is very telling. If I was being paranoid it would say this might be because gay men are far more visible than bisexual people and lesbians and so a clueless twit like Davies will not have given them much thought. If I was being more generous I would probably suggest that Davies simply hasn’t given it much thought because he rarely seems to give any thought to anything. In all honesty I’m inclined to believe option one, but that is an issue to be addressed in another post.

The other problem with the above quote, which was touched upon earlier in the interview when Davies discussed the school friend, is that it seems to equate a non-heterosexual identity with liking Erasure (I know. What. The. Actual. Fuck). Not only is this a bit of a tired reliance on stereotypes it is massively reductive and extremely insulting. Who does this man think he is to reduce people he has already demonstrated he knows fuck all about to taste in music?

Then he wishes there was some way to avoid such young people feeling excluded. There is. It might even be something to do with the broader sex education he had just expressed his mistrust for.

Aitkenhead then asks him a hypothetical question. What if his worst fears materialized and a change in sex education led to more openly gay people? What would be the problem? The best Davies can offer is a vague sense of ‘unease’. He can’t really put it into words, he just doesn’t really like the idea of it. Basically he doesn’t know why, he just doesn’t really like gay people. That, my friends, can also be said as disliking gay people for no good reason and/or because they are gay. Otherwise known as homophobia. It doesn’t matter how much he whines that it is just ‘instinct’ it’s still homophobic. Maybe if we lived in a society that didn’t treat heterosexuality as the ‘norm’ and therefore everything else as ‘abnormal’ snivellingly thoughtless little shitbags like Davies would be made quite so nervous by those big bad gays.

Then he drops another clanger;

"I make no bones about it, I'm a product of my upbringing and of the time I was brought up, so I'm not going to pretend not to be. It's not like I was brought up in San Francisco or somewhere like that.”

Ah, that old chestnut. The ‘it’s all down to the place I’m from/the time I grew up’ argument. This is, quite frankly, the biggest, most irritating pile of apologist wank I’ve ever heard. Whenever someone blames their upbringing for their intolerant views it’s either laziness or looking for excuses. The same goes for the ‘generational’ argument. I cannot believe no one else is insulted at the suggestion that, because a person is raised in a strictly religious household, or South Wales, or the 1940s that they cannot listen to or critically assess new ideas and arguments. I would rather someone brought out the arguments against something that they had come to a considered conclusion over rather than just blaming their parents like sulky teenagers. It’s crap and generally offensive all round.

Do I think David Davies is a hate filled, miss informed, ranting homophobe? No, actually I don’t. I believe him when he says he doesn’t really know much about the debates surrounding gay marriage (although one then wonders why he spoke about it on BBC Wales). I think, sadly, that he is blinded by our heteronormative society and so bound by the ideas we are spoon fed that he really doesn’t have a fucking clue. But he needs to get one. Everyone does. No one, lesbian, gay, straight, bi, queer, asexual, pansexual, poly or other is benefitting from a situation where the rights of millions of people can be questioned due to a sense of unease.

But I also think he’s avoiding the issue by hiding behind a wall of (probably at least partially) fabricated confusion. This isn’t sweet. It’s worry for a politicians to be so utterly uninformed about something he pipes off opinions about. He needs to educate himself and anyone else who wants to weigh in on the debate needs to as well. There is no received wisdom here. Although it pains me to say it even Tories have braincells. They should learn how to use them.

Tories Savage Worker's Rights

Well, April 2012 is looking like a right old corker of a month. Assuming the world doesn’t end on Friday and we all live to see it we can look forward to a complete arse up of the benefits system and now the possibility of eroding the rights of those who have been made redundant.

In a particularly stellar display of not-giving-a-fuck-about-95%-of-the-population the government has announced plans to halve the notice period of redundancy from 90 days to 45 days. It is hoped this will make it easier for businesses and workers, although how it’s meant to make it easier for workers is left unclear. As far as I can see this will allow businesses (or their administrators if things have got that bad) to cut workers adrift sooner. If the business in question is in administration then I can see the attraction of wanting to shift the responsibility for those pesky workers and their inconvenient wages off themselves as soon as possible. It is however a completely twattish thing to do.

The current ninety days gives people more time to sort things out. It may also give them more money and more time to figure out what to do with that money. The suggestion made that it would help people get into another job faster is laughable. If someone is being made redundant and a new job comes along they will still be able to leave after the agreed notice period regardless of whether that is ninety days or not. Although it does seem to have escaped the government’s notice that this country is not exactly brimming with jobs at the moment.

Another silly suggestion was that fixed term contracts will just be left to run their course. That's just daft. What happens if the company has gone under and will cease trading long before the decided end date? As well as being ridiculous thse plans also don't appear to be particuarly well thought through.

A cursory glance at the reporting seems to suggest that this is part of a drive to ‘cut red tape’. I’m starting to become extremely wary of this phrase. It seems to stand for ‘removing people and positions to save money’ and ‘stack things even more against working people by removing layers of access.’

The TUC have said this is part of an extended attack on worker’s rights. I’m inclined to agree with them. This is a clear example of the needs of business and money makers being put before those of ordinary working people. This is a symptom of capitalism at its absolute worst. The only people who will benefit from this are those overseeing companies in administration as they will be able to wash their hands of people caught up in the trauma of redundancy quicker.

Out of touch or simply don’t care? Arguments can be made for both.

Fox Hunting and the Nature of Charities

Yesterday a hunting group in Oxfordshire were fined after admitting to engaging in illegal fox hunting. Two members of the hunt were fined £2800 between them and ordered to pay another £5000 in costs. The Heythrop Hunt itself was fined a further £4000 and told to pay £15000 in costs. However despite these princely sums the case still cost the RSPCA a whopping £327000.

It was remarked upon by the magistrate that perhaps the money the RSPCA spent could have been put to better use. He hinted in a BBC news report last night that people who made donations to the charity maybe didn’t intend for their money to be spent on things like this.

That is, quite simply, bollocks.

Aside from the fact that these people BROKE THE LAW and there is footage of them BREAKING THE LAW and therefore it should have been a criminal prosecution and not left to a charity to bring these barbarians to trial that is not how charity works. There have been problems before of people earmarking the donations they made to charity and the charity having a lot of money but not being able to use it as it came with stipulations to be used for something else. This has caused unnecessary problems in Indonesia where money was given just to built orphanages. Anything else the communities needed was denied by do-gooding Westerners who thought they knew better. Almost the opposite happened in Japan after the recent tsunami. Being a developed and relatively wealthy nation Japan did not need all the aid donated to them, but because the money was given to help only victims of the tsunami it couldn't be given to any other causes. 

The arrogance of a person giving to charity to tell them what to spend the money on is staggering. When I donate to charity it is a charity I know well and so I assume they know what they are doing so I trust them to put my money to good use. There have also been times when I have heard the argument made by people that they won’t donate to charity because the charity might just ‘use it for overheads’. Does it really never occur to these people that, in order for it to do the best work, the charity will need some sort of infrastructure?

Also I have donated to the RSPCA before. I have made cash donations, bought things in RSPCA shops and it is one of the buckets I am most likely to put spare change in. This could be put down to years of watching Animal Hospital as a child but I really feel the charity does good work. Do I think they did the right thing in this case? Yes I do. Would I be proud to think some of my money went towards bringing the Heythrop Hunt to justice? Damn right I would.

This case sent a clear message to everyone who thinks they can flout this law that it is a law. To continue to hunt and torture foxes for fun is illegal and if you continue to do it you can expect to be prosecuted. Hopefully next time it will be a full on criminal case brought by the CPS and charities won’t need to foot the bill.

Fox hunting is barbaric. I have never heard an argument for it that convinced me to keep it legal. If it controls pests and keeps the fox population at a manageable level there are far more humane ways to do that. I also do not accept that something should be kept alive just because it’s tradition. I also resent the implication trotted out some pro-hunters that I don’t understand because I am not from the countryside or I am not from the particular class that indulges in this vile past time that I don’t understand it. I’m sorry, but I do. You are watching an animal get ripped to pieces for fun. That is both horrific and suggestive of a particularly vicious mindset. Getting pleasure out of watching something being brutally killed should be sounding psychological alarm bells. You can argue the positive social aspects all you want, but I’ve always managed to find positive social aspects in pubs, parks, house parties and good conversation. No animals needed to die.

I applaud the RSPCA’s actions, I just wish it hadn’t been left to them to do it. My only regret is that these scumbags aren’t going to prison.

The Joys of Being Dole Scum

In January I booked a hotel for four nights in Whitby for me and a couple of friends to go to the Whitby goth festival. I thought this would be fine, because, when I booked it, I assumed I would be doing a PhD or between courses and therefore pretty flexible. But things didn’t quite go to plan and three very tragic things happened to me. One, I had to leave Newcastle, two I had to go on the dole and three I had to move to Wakefield.

If you’ve ever been to Wakefield I don’t need to explain which of those three was the worst. If you haven’t then good for you.

But I digress. I now am pretty solidly on the dole. As of Monday they started paying me and everything, although they took their sweet time. I’m now going to refer to a span of twenty two days as a ‘JSA Fortnight’. And, because I think it’s only fair that if you enter an agreement with someone you uphold your end of the deal I’ve been looking for jobs and signing on and not being late to appointments (harder than you’d think with the bus service near me). So I’ve maintained the moral high ground over the job centre. Go me.

Except my signing on day falls on a day I’m going to be at the seaside. It’s not a complicated procedure. You fill in a form and then come in the day after you get back and sign on and then everything goes back to normal. Except some of the things it asks you to do just seem a bit, well, dickish. For example, you have to say you are prepared to return from your holiday if you get offered an interview. If you do not say you are prepared to do this it goes to a decision maker and you could lost four weeks work of payments. For those of you who think that’s fair enough think about what that actually entails. What could possibly be your only holiday in years is cut short because some bloodthirsty capitalist can’t be bothered to reschedule. And what if you’re there with other people? Do they have to come home too? What if you can’t? What if you don’t drive or you didn’t take your car or you went with advance train tickets and don’t feel like selling your kidney for replacements?

Also I’m pretty sure most employers would be understanding and give you a couple of days grace. Yeah, I know I just called them bloodthirsty capitalists but I got caught up in the moment a bit. I apologise.

Anyway, back to that bloody form. You also have to promise that you’ll keep checking for jobs. I’m jammy. I have internet access on my phone (in theory. Previous experience suggests signal is less than reliable in Whitby) so I can check job sites etc. What if a person has no internet on their phone? They could look in a local paper I suppose, but how useful is a bar job in Brighton to someone who lives in Carlisle?    

But these are just pedantic points dreamt up by me on the bus home. My biggest bugbear is the wording and tone of the form. They kept most of it so I no longer have the juiciest examples but the attitude was that I had done something unforgiveable in asking to go on a trip that had been booked for nearly ten months and at the time of booking, as far as I knew, I would be free. It’s symptomatic of the view expressed by every oozing, self-righteous corner of this country that people on the dole (or any benefit you care to think of) are scum. We’re less than ‘normal’ people and not only do we not deserve the same rights we don’t even deserve the same courtesies.

To be on JSA in 2012 is to constantly search for jobs. It is to never go out, never spend any of the governments money on anything ‘frivolous’ (screw you wankers. I had a half hour wait for my bus and I spent dole money on a second hand paperback and a coffee. A Costa coffee. I am a terrible person). It is to understand that it’s only by the grace of the benevolent state that you don’t starve to death. Although they were so slow processing my claim if I hadn’t had caring and patient parents I would have starved to death. Twice. It is to feel constantly ashamed and like a failure and live with the reality that you are the lowest of the low. As if I didn’t feel like that already.

It’s the same sort of mind set that assumes dole bunnies are scroungers sitting on their arse all day. I know from personal experience that it’s really hard to do fuck all on the dole. Last time I was on it my old computer in its final weeks of life ate an e-mail where I applied for a job. They stopped my JSA for six weeks because I ‘failed’ (accidently I might add) to apply for one vacancy. I had applied for twenty three others in the previous four weeks. Oh, that was over Christmas as well.

So, although I think it’s perfectly acceptable to tell the job centre you’re going away, re-arrange your sign on date and, if possible, keep looking for jobs/checking on jobs applied for it is not acceptable to treat people like this. People on JSA, as the name suggests, are seeking jobs. That can be a really hard thing and if they’ve just been made redundant or something similar it can be a pretty shitty time. They need support not stigmatisation.

Disclaimer: the people who work at Wakey job centre are all really kind and helpful. It’s the system that’s bollocks, not them. As well as being insulting this form was also quite confusing so the lovely Wakey job centre people talked me through it.

P.S. This blog is not getting an introduction. Everytime I tried to write one it sounded shit so I gave up.