A4e in a bit of troube

Seems that A4e and a few others might be in a bit of trouble!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...nt-jobs-scheme

On 28 June, 11:11, Paul™ <paul26...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Seems that A4e and a few others might be in a bit of trouble!
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...quiry-governme...

So a 13 month investogation, which didn't affect ability to bid for
other contracts. And having to repay for at least the actions of two
members of staff.
Tiny compared to what DWP staff that fiddled have cost.

Come to think of it, tiny compared to what fiddling staff in much
smaller organisations have cost.
Still, its fun for the papers to print such things about companies
with links to MPs and ex-ministers.

Martin <><

"PaulT" <> wrote in message
news:e3b1782f-76d2-4473-a306-...
> Seems that A4e and a few others might be in a bit of trouble!
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...nt-jobs-scheme


Scammers the fkin lot of them, and Blunkett, the former work and pensions
secretary is on the payroll.
A4e gets a 100 million of tax payers lolly and he gets paid as some half
assed consultant from the useless cunts he gave the contracts to. It makes
the MP's expenses scam look like a minor detail not worth talking about.
This is how real scams are run, creating BS contracts to get paid as
consultants.

145,000000 spent to find 19,725 people work, allegedly. Some return that is.
Those figures are way off, the real cost is far greater than this when you
consider all the other so called providers that are involved in this scam.
Then there is the cost of New Deal and the PA's who literally do **** all,
they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do.

On 28 June, 23:53, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "PaulT" <paul26...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e3b1782f-76d2-4473-a306-...
>
> > Seems that A4e and a few others might be in a bit of trouble!
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...quiry-governme...
>
> Scammers the fkin lot of them, and Blunkett, the former work and pensions
> secretary is on the payroll.
> A4e gets a 100 million of tax payers lolly and he gets paid as some half
> assed consultant from the useless cunts he gave the contracts to. It makes
> the MP's expenses scam look like a minor detail not worth talking about.
> This is how real scams are run, creating BS contracts to get paid as
> consultants.
>
> 145,000000 spent to find 19,725 people work, allegedly. Some return that is.
> Those figures are way off, the real cost is far greater than this when you
> consider all the other so called providers that are involved in this scam.
> Then there is the cost of New Deal and the PA's who literally do **** all,
> they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do.

Work is the end result. But often more is needed doing to get someone
that far than the jobcentre provides.
Someone with mental health issues, someone on the sick, someone out of
the job market for many years. The jobcentre only goes so far, no
further.
Thats where other providers of services come in. Such as A4e, Shaw
Trust etc.

If they are doing a crap job, contract can be taken off them and put
back to tender.
Which A4e would have a chance of winning.

Martin <><

<> wrote in message
news:2ddab5a4-e1e7-4bad-adf1-...
> On 28 June, 23:53, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "PaulT" <paul26...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e3b1782f-76d2-4473-a306-...
>>
>> > Seems that A4e and a few others might be in a bit of trouble!
>>
>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...quiry-governme...
>>
>> Scammers the fkin lot of them, and Blunkett, the former work and pensions
>> secretary is on the payroll.
>> A4e gets a 100 million of tax payers lolly and he gets paid as some half
>> assed consultant from the useless cunts he gave the contracts to. It
>> makes
>> the MP's expenses scam look like a minor detail not worth talking about.
>> This is how real scams are run, creating BS contracts to get paid as
>> consultants.
>>
>> 145,000000 spent to find 19,725 people work, allegedly. Some return that
>> is.
>> Those figures are way off, the real cost is far greater than this when
>> you
>> consider all the other so called providers that are involved in this
>> scam.
>> Then there is the cost of New Deal and the PA's who literally do ****
>> all,
>> they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do.
>
> Work is the end result. But often more is needed doing to get someone
> that far than the jobcentre provides.
> Someone with mental health issues, someone on the sick, someone out of
> the job market for many years. The jobcentre only goes so far, no
> further.
> Thats where other providers of services come in. Such as A4e, Shaw
> Trust etc.


As I said above, they do **** all. You are ordered by a ND/PA to attend A4e
who tell you to look at the ads in Jobcentre and newspapers, which is what
Jobcentre staff get paid for and is something claimants do by default to
qualify for JSA. Its a scam plain and simple.

Its the equivalent of employing thousands of plumbers to turn off a tap, or
thousands of electricians to turn off a light and paying each one of them a
massive salary. It has to be the most pointless waste of money I have ever
seen, for taxpayers anyway, but the likes of Blunkett is getting very rich
out of it for doing nothing.


>
> If they are doing a crap job, contract can be taken off them and put
> back to tender.

> Which A4e would have a chance of winning.
>

Or no chance of losing seeing as the ****ers charged with awarding the scam
contracts, our MP's, are on the bloody payroll as consultants.

> 145,000000 spent to find 19,725 people work, allegedly. Some return that is.

Those people would have probably found a job through their own anyway.

On 29 June, 18:18, Dimona <m...@mmm.mmm> wrote:
> > 145,000000 spent to find 19,725 people work, allegedly. Some return that is.
>
> Those people would have probably found a job through their own anyway.

Would they?
Or maybe those people would never have found work on their own anyway.

We'll simply never know either way.

Martin <><

"Dimona" <> wrote in message news:h2at1a$agc$...
>> 145,000000 spent to find 19,725 people work, allegedly. Some return that
>> is.
>
> Those people would have probably found a job through their own anyway.
>
>

You can bet your life it was on their own, its not like A4e staff done it
for them. The 3 or 4 staff that worked for A4e in the office I attended were
always busy filling in forms to make it look like they were doing something
for you, this is what we covered with so and so and so on, and you had to
sign it. Then there was more bloody forms to sign so they got paid, as each
out of work muppet represent hard cash to them, thats where their interest
begins and ends, **** what happens after that. They get paid many times over
for the same people who are sent back time after time. So they can fail
miserably and no one questions it, or how many times they claimed payments
for the same people.
It wouldnt surprise me if most of the 19,725 were sent on placements and did
not have real paid jobs at all.

<> wrote in message
news:8a6bedc2-e4a3-48a0-b320-...
> On 29 June, 18:18, Dimona <m...@mmm.mmm> wrote:
>> > 145,000000 spent to find 19,725 people work, allegedly. Some return
>> > that is.
>>
>> Those people would have probably found a job through their own anyway.
>
> Would they?
> Or maybe those people would never have found work on their own anyway.
>
> We'll simply never know either way.
>

Actually you will know, I was there many times. If you are not applying for
jobs as per the rules of your JSA, that is you, not them. They will ask you
to leave, simple as that. Its no different to signing on, you have to do
your job search if you want to claim JSA. The ****ers are getting paid for
nothing.

On 29 June, 20:12, "Niteawk" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <mart2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8a6bedc2-e4a3-48a0-b320-...
>
> > On 29 June, 18:18, Dimona <m...@mmm.mmm> wrote:
> >> > 145,000000 spent to find 19,725 people work, allegedly. Some return
> >> > that is.
>
> >> Those people would have probably found a job through their own anyway.
>
> > Would they?
> > Or maybe those people would never have found work on their own anyway.
>
> > We'll simply never know either way.
>
> Actually you will know, I was there many times. If you are not applying for
> jobs as per the rules of your JSA, that is you, not them. They will ask you
> to leave, simple as that. Its no different to signing on, you have to do
> your job search if you want to claim JSA. The ****ers are getting paid for
> nothing.

So you know, when its impossible to know?
Nice one.

So what if you have to comply with the rules of JSA - we all have to
comply with rules.

Are you so sure they are getting paid for nothing? Doesn't look like
that from where I'm sitting.

Martin <><