The Truth About IPP Sentences

Government blackmails unemployed into making hopeless job applications

Government blackmails job seekers

The government has now been reduced to blackmailing Job Seekers

Unemployed people are being threatened and blackmailed into making entirely hopeless job applications. Those claiming Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) are now being forced to apply for at least three jobs per week, even if they are barred from working in such positions or do not have the necessary skills.

Ex-offenders with serious criminal records but who are seeking to live safely in the community are being threatened with the withdrawal of their Job Seekers Allowance if they do not apply for at least three jobs every week, despite Job Centre Plus (JCP) knowing that those with convictions for sexual or violent offences are often barred from applying for certain jobs and in any case are unlikely to be taken on by unsympathetic employers.

Indeed, research by Loughborough University has shown most released sex-offenders will not even be granted an interview, employers being terrified of the backlash and potential damage to their business that could arise should knowledge of their employment of a sex offender end up in the public domain. has spoken to some of those attending a local Job Centre Plus office (JCP) and many report that staff are now openly more hostile and arrogant, one member of staff telling a job seeker, “I pay my taxes. Why shouldn’t you?”

The manager of the JCP declined to comment on the alleged remark.

The Conservative led coalition has taken a clear decision to play to the middle class  voters whose support they have lost. This involves the very public policy of bullying people back into work by forcing them to apply for often wholly unsuitable jobs – whilst at the same time refusing to acknowledge the fact that there are those who are also expected to apply but because of their age or criminal record have no hope of success.

The government’s discredited Work Programme, originally intended to help those with the most difficult background to find employment, has also given up on the most difficult cases; particularly those who have been out of work for 5 years or more.

With regards to the lack of help for the 30,000 sex offenders now living in the community, most of whom are unemployed and unemployable, both the WP and JCP  are refusing to comment or to even acknowledge that a problem exists.

We  contacted the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith for his views on the threats being made against unemployed people and the lack of support for those with serious convictions.

Duncan Smith would not comment but a spokesman told us that under the new benefits regime, claimants will be expected to spend 35 hours looking for work each week. The new ‘Job Search’ form that is being issued requires claimants to detail:

  • What steps they have taken to find work over the current two week period
  • Which jobs have been applied for
  • Whether there was anything that prevented the claimant for looking for work
  • What steps were taken to find employment in the previous two week period
  • Any courses the claimant may have attended (signed by the course provider with an assessment)

If the JSA member of staff believes that the claimant has not made sufficient effort to find a job, the claimant will be referred to an ‘advisor’. If the advisor supports the view of the original assessing member of staff, the claimant will likely have their benefit stopped.

The DWP spokesman also told that the problems encountered by those with serious criminal convictions were not the responsibility of the DWP but of employers:

“It is ultimately a matter for employers as to who they do or do not employ. The government cannot force employers to take on those with criminal records.”

However, when we asked whether it was right to force people into applying for jobs that they had no hope of ever obtaining, the spokesman refused to comment further.

The Regional Manager of one Work Programme provider suggested that those who were experiencing serious problems such as those outlined above, “…should seriously consider whether they should go self-employed.”

In other words, the Work Programme has given up on the most difficult cases, primarily because under the government’s “payment by results” system, the Work Programme provider won’t make any money out of difficult to place clients.

It is not only those with criminal records who are falling foul of the new requirements either; many long-term unemployed and those who are 60 or over are also being penalised, threatened and – as one job seeker put it – ‘blackmailed’ into making entirely hopeless and unsuitable job applications.

60 year old men in particular are unlikely to find work, especially if they have been unemployed for a number of years.

Employers are wary of taking on someone who has been outside of the “work ethic” for even a year or two, let alone those unemployed for more than five years. believes that with the government steadfastly refusing to even acknowledge that there is a serious problem for many with criminal convictions or who are simply too old for an employer to consider, the new requirements and regime of the DWP being forced upon disadvantaged job seekers is unfair, unjust and possibly even discriminatory.

Whilst most people would agree that if someone has the opportunity and the ability to work they should do so, there are nevertheless many thousands of individuals whose past criminal history (or even their age) makes them particularly disliked by employers.

Those with serious criminal offences in their history and who are subject to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) will most likely never be offered a job again – thanks to government restrictions on them together with this country’s obsession with so called ‘public protection’.

If Iain Duncan Smith and his team do not even have the courage to accept that there is a problem, the prospect of thousands of our of work ex-offenders losing their JSA and turning back to crime is a very real probability.

In particular, if sex offenders lose their JSA because they are being forced to reveal highly sensitive information about themselves that could be accessed by vigilante groups and others, they may become destabilised and feel insecure in the community and may therefore reoffend; something that the government seems to have either overlooked or chooses to ignore.

Indeed, in the view of, the above illustrates the real problem; a problem that we have seen time and again with this government and its miserable predecessor:

When a truly difficult problem arises – often as a result of the government’s own populist policies – ministers do not want to acknowledge that the problem exists, let alone try to solve it.

To do so would necessarily undermine other populist policies – such as those relating to ‘public protection’ and ‘equality’ – which have been put in place not because they are wholly necessary but because they play to the voters and to the tabloids.

If however Cameron, Clegg and Duncan Smith ignore the current bullying tactics being used by those who are supposed to be helping the unemployed to find work, not only will there be more out of work individuals but there will also be more people wandering the streets with nothing to lose by taking direct action against the government and the revenge-driven society that has taken the decision to throw them onto the scrap heap.

When people who are homeless and penniless start breaking middle class windows and setting fire to middle class homes and businesses, the Conservatives will have only themselves to blame – whilst as usual the ineffective Liberals look on helplessly and the Labour party try to make political capital out of the misfortune of others.

(Unemployed or have a criminal record? Failed a CRB check? More in our Members Forum. Join by clicking HERE)

Tags: , , , , ,

5 Responses to Government blackmails unemployed into making hopeless job applications

  1. lawbreaker
    October 14, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    I have had NO money since 1st Jan 2013 – so I have committed over 100 Burglaries, stolen so much over the last couple of years just to live, buy food etc since my money was stopped back in Jan 1st 2013 and because of now having to maybe go 10 years with no money and my age 57 years old I am not sure of if I will even get a pension too. So over the next 3 years I have to plan on possible another 100 – 300 plus Burglaries and many other crimes to have a fall back plan of around £20,000 – £30,000 to last me in my pension years. IF and only IF I do get pension money I will give away all I have taking to homeless and people who have been sanctions. My full story is here :- I am not a writer by any means – but like many others need to be open and tell the truth how people are being forced to live – so forgive me with how I worded stuff…..
    I am not proud of my crimes but need to eat, live and survive.

  2. pete
    April 9, 2013 at 7:50 pm

    Raymond Peytors puts his finger deftly on the pulse of punitive governance in this forthright article: the more disconnected and remote from real people our politicians become, the more willingly they adopt the populist authoritarianism and politically correct moralism spewed out relentlessly by the mainstream media. As we can see, capitulating to commercially-driven populism might create transiently fashionable statutes, but it rarely creates sane, rational and effective social policy.

    It seems to me that all mainstream political parties converge on two tests of “electability” that none of them have the vision or will to question: that they should show themselves to be efficient managers of capitalism, and that they should advance the reach of the punitive state (which now employs millions) by adhering to the inherently misanthropic and paranoid ideology of public protection. Persuading people that they are constantly in danger and in need of official protection, of course, are toxic ingredients that merely combine to produce a predictable effect: no one feels safeguarded by official safeguarding, they feel under siege instead.

    Frightened people are more inclined to be swayed by the entrepreneurs of endless fear to become even more frightened, and even more punitive. This is a game without end. But the most defenceless and resourceless will pay the heaviest price; the billionaires and their prosperously remunerated financial managers, who presided over the financial calamity which has produced our age of global austerity, will go on as before, wholly insulated from the danger of poverty felt by most ordinary people, who are generally one paycheck away from near-destitution. We’re all in this together, but when it comes to official bullying and intimidation, some are more in it than others. Those who have fallen into dependence upon the wrathful largesse of the punitive state can now expect a serious kicking.

    These measures will not decrease unemployment and they will not protect “the public” (a term which apparently excludes ex-offenders struggling to become legitimately economically self-sufficient). But they will, as Raymond Peytors so persuasively argues, risk a big increase in offending. If people cannot eat, if they cannot afford civilised shelter, because they are permanently blacklisted from employment, no amount of compulsory job applications will prevent them from slipping into abject destitution. If their only means of income is cut off, they will have little choice: commit suicide or turn to crime and the black economy more generally. Expect “crime” to rise with every new public protection initiative; sometimes, especially under conditions of extreme punitive governance such as ours, it is simply a means of survival amongst the scapegoated and the desperate.

    The punitive state and the craven politicians who created it and preside over it face two stark choices. Either they must exterminate or permanently incarcerate everyone who has acquired a criminal conviction, a status which became vastly easier to achieve for many thanks to New Labour’s frenetic efforts to criminalise all manner of trivial behaviour through thousands of new criminal laws, or it will have to support them in their post-carceral rehabilitation to find gainful employment. Sadly, I fear there is much more prospect of the former than the latter. Why go for political sanity and simple human compassion when a flattering headline beckons?

  3. simcal
    April 8, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    No employer will give preference to anybody with a criminal conviction no matter how minor. Successive governments both Labour and Conservative are to blame for this sorry state of affairs. They succeeded with criminalising large segments of the workforce and compounded it by allowing mass uncontrolled migration. The people you refer to in the article are competing for low unskilled work with 1000’s of East Europeans. Even if an ex con want’s to remain on the straight and narrow too many obstacles are placed in the way. It makes economic sense to pay benefit than fund another prison place but then too many organisations and individuals have a vested interest in recidivism.

  4. smiler
    April 8, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    35 hours a week? What’s that, 7 hours a day, Mon – Fri. 7 hours a day looking for work? What a ridiculous figure.

    So out they go Monday, spend an hour looking at shop windows, a couple of hours online (if they’re allowed a PC), and then perhaps 4 hours walking around wearing a sandwich board. Pick 3 jobs at random and apply.

    Tuesday – repeat the above. Ditto Wednesday. Or of course, you could simply make it all up.

    These politicians just simply have no solutions at all do they? Did you know that more is lost through legal tax avoidance each year than is lost in benefit fraud? Ah, but they can’t tackle that issue can they, because they’re probably using those self same avoidance schemes themselves.

  5. Joe
    April 8, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    The government have sunk too low this time. How can they force people to apply for jobs when the jobs either aren’t there or will be refused because of a criminal record check which the government put there in the first place?

    About time someone wrote this. Great site thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.