Sueing the Shaw Trust


N

Niteawk

Is there anybody left in this forum? anyway I was wondering if I can sue the
ST for damages, as attendance is mandatory, if my health is affected.
 
Ad

Advertisements

I

Iain

Niteawk said:
Is there anybody left in this forum? anyway I was wondering if I can sue
the ST for damages, as attendance is mandatory, if my health is affected.
You could think about asking that question in uk.legal, or probably better
still in uk.legal.moderated. You would need to give details of the
circumstances. Be aware that if you use uklm (moderated) your post could be
rejected if, for instance, your post is abusive, or does not contain
law-related material. But any responses from there should be higher quality
than from uk.legal. However be prepared to wait for your post to appear
while it is being moderated.

Iain
 
B

Bill

Niteawk said:
Is there anybody left in this forum? anyway I was wondering if I can sue
the ST for damages, as attendance is mandatory, if my health is affected.

As Iain has said.
Also consider that although your attendence is mandatory, is the compulsion
from the Shaw Thrust or the DWP. Would you need to sue the DWP as well.
Could you demonstrate that, disregarding the compulsion element, attendence
had a direct effect on your health.

I am no lawyer, but it seems that you are entering a potential minefied
where VERY knowing legal advice is needed.

Bill
 
N

Niteawk

Bill said:
Also consider that although your attendence is mandatory, is the
compulsion from the Shaw Thrust or the DWP. Would you need to sue the DWP
as well.

I think the DWP and ST, who are its agents are one and the same in this
instance. If a customer has health issues, I imagine the law makes provision
for this. Then again, how many times do you hear of cases where medical
evidence is ignored by ATOS, DM's, and sometimes by TS.


Could you demonstrate that, disregarding the compulsion element,
attendence had a direct effect on your health.
When health issues are clearly stated in submissions to the DWP and TS,
backed up by written medical reports, then to put one in an environment
which was in question to begin with can lead to deterioration IMO.

I am no lawyer, but it seems that you are entering a potential minefied
where VERY knowing legal advice is needed.

Basically the way the law is laid down in cases like this needs looking at.
Tribunals, if they are impartial, should not allow your appeal only to
declare you fit to attend work related courses to get a job. You are either
fit to work or you are not.
 
M

mogga

Is there anybody left in this forum? anyway I was wondering if I can sue the
ST for damages, as attendance is mandatory, if my health is affected.

Is ST a Uk wide thing?
There's one in Oldham which is pants and has given someone going back
to work some wrong information. Not surprising as they seem equipped
the same as the badly run job centre courses in the 90s. (do a CV)
 
R

Robbie

mogga said:
Is ST a Uk wide thing?
There's one in Oldham which is pants and has given someone going back
to work some wrong information. Not surprising as they seem equipped
the same as the badly run job centre courses in the 90s. (do a CV)
Shaw Trust is a nationwide charity. There's only a few ST branches where
they run any training type schemes. Most don't do anything like that and
in fact are very helpful and highly respected. Unfortunately the
Government dangle money like a carrot and for some branches they bid for
training contracts as a way of getting income. ST shouldn't really be
getting involved like this, they should value their independence and
impartiality and should keep a distance between themselves and the
benefit system.
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Niteawk

Robbie said:
Shaw Trust is a nationwide charity. There's only a few ST branches where
they run any training type schemes. Most don't do anything like that and
in fact are very helpful and highly respected. Unfortunately the
Government dangle money like a carrot and for some branches they bid for
training contracts as a way of getting income. ST shouldn't really be
getting involved like this, they should value their independence and
impartiality and should keep a distance between themselves and the benefit
system.
They are supposed to be a charity, how can they keep their charity status
when they are working for and getting paid by the government?
 
M

mart2306

Shaw Trust is a nationwide charity. There's only a few ST branches where
they run any training type schemes. Most don't do anything like that and
in fact are very helpful and highly respected. Unfortunately the
Government dangle money like a carrot and for some branches they bid for
training contracts as a way of getting income. ST shouldn't really be
getting involved like this, they should value their independence and
impartiality and should keep a distance between themselves and the
benefit system.
Fine to talk about ST keeping their distance. They rely on government
contracts for a lot of their income.
Be able to do a whole lot less without government contracts - some
charities refuse contracts (and risk shutting down these days as less
money available), others take government contracts if it enables them
to do
the work they were set up for.
Government money is very nice, but has a lot of administration
involved with it.

Martin <><
 
M

mart2306

They are supposed to be a charity, how can they keep their charity status
when they are working for and getting paid by the government?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Very simple.
Charity income comes from a variety of sources - occasionally
government will take charity work on itself (probation service as an
example) but mostly are content to let charities deal with
issues affecting society.
Some groups get money from government and retain a lot of independence
- Amnesty International (not a charity). Others have less independence
from their funding body (Lloyds TSB Foundations excluding Scotland as
an example).
I can't think of any charity that are 100% funded by the government -
some have contracts worth millions each but can and do have the
capacity to tell the government to stick it.

Martin <><
 
N

Niteawk

Very simple.
Charity income comes from a variety of sources - occasionally
government will take charity work on itself (probation service as an
example) but mostly are content to let charities deal with
issues affecting society.
Some groups get money from government and retain a lot of independence
- Amnesty International (not a charity). Others have less independence
from their funding body (Lloyds TSB Foundations excluding Scotland as
an example).
I can't think of any charity that are 100% funded by the government -
some have contracts worth millions each but can and do have the
capacity to tell the government to stick it.

OK forget about the funding side of it, they are not acting as a charity
when they keep ordering people who are suffering from various types of
illness to attend work programs, especially if those people informed ST that
they cannot attend for that reason.

They fall foul of rule E4. Principle 1c Benefits must be balanced against
any detriment or harm
'Benefit' means the overall or net benefit to the public. It is not simply a
question of showing that some benefit may result.

Examples of things that might be evidenced to be detrimental or harmful
might include:

Something that is dangerous or damaging to mental or physical health;

Unlawfully restricting a person's freedom.

No organisation that has aims that are illegal, or that intentionally
deceives or misrepresents its aims and so is a sham, can be a charity.
Where that sort of detriment or harm is present then there is no balancing
to be done as, notwithstanding any benefits that might arise from carrying
out the organisation's aims, it cannot be recognised as charitable.
 
M

mart2306

OK forget about the funding side of it, they are not acting as a charity
when they keep ordering people who are suffering from various types of
illness to attend work programs, especially if those people informed ST that
they cannot attend for that reason.

They fall foul of  rule E4. Principle 1c Benefits must be balanced against
any detriment or harm
'Benefit' means the overall or net benefit to the public. It is not simply a
question of showing that some benefit may result.

Examples of things that might be evidenced to be detrimental or harmful
might include:

Something that is dangerous or damaging to mental or physical health;

Unlawfully restricting a person's freedom.

No organisation that has aims that are illegal, or that intentionally
deceives or misrepresents its aims and so is a sham, can be a charity.
Where that sort of detriment or harm is present then there is no balancing
to be done as, notwithstanding any benefits that might arise from carrying
out the organisation's aims, it cannot be recognised as charitable.- Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Not sure about 'unlawfully restricting a person's freedom. Sounds like
what they are doing is legal.
And feel free to disagree with them about benefits versus harm - their
view will probably be different from yours on the subject.

Martin <><
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Niteawk

- Show quoted text -
Not sure about 'unlawfully restricting a person's freedom. Sounds like
what they are doing is legal.
And feel free to disagree with them about benefits versus harm - their
view will probably be different from yours on the subject.

Martin <><

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Shaw Trust is a charity that is or was supposed to be about "helping
disabled people" who want to find work. Trying to force people who are
currently suffering from mental and physical illness, into the same group is
against the law.

Even helping "disabled people" is doubtful since they have made it
compulsory or mandatory for them to attend work focussed interviews, that
has nothing to do with charity or being charitable. So again they are
breaking the law, one of which is all charities must act within their
charitable aims.
 
M

mart2306

Not sure about 'unlawfully restricting a person's freedom. Sounds like
what they are doing is legal.
And feel free to disagree with them about benefits versus harm - their
view will probably be different from yours on the subject.

Martin  <><

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Shaw Trust is a charity that is or was supposed to be about "helping
disabled people" who want to find work. Trying to force people who are
currently suffering from mental and physical illness, into the same groupis
against the law.

Even helping "disabled people" is doubtful since they have made it
compulsory or mandatory for them to attend work focussed interviews, that
has nothing to do with charity or being charitable. So again they are
breaking the law, one of which is all charities must act within their
charitable aims.
And yet its not for you to decide what is a charitable aim. And
whether a charity is operating within that.
If you disagree with what the charity is doing, contact the charity
commission. I can't see how they are acting against their charitable
aims but you seem to have a problem with them.

Martin <><
 
N

Niteawk

And yet its not for you to decide what is a charitable aim. And
whether a charity is operating within that.
If you disagree with what the charity is doing, contact the charity
commission. I can't see how they are acting against their charitable
aims but you seem to have a problem with them.

Martin <><

++++++++++++++++
Funny how your posts won't indent, always seems to happen when you are
running out of excuses. FYI, I have decided nothing, I am simply quoting
from some of the laws and regulations that charities are supposed to abide
by.
The issue here is, if we all must abide the laws of this country, I can't
see how the Shaw Trust can get away with saying they are a charity that
helps disabled people, when clearly they are not.

I think it is time the public were made aware of that fact, especially those
who donate goods and money to this organisation, and those who volunteer to
help them. How would they feel about donating if they knew Shaw Trust are
being paid £16.3 million on a 5 year contract, to order sick people to
attend work related courses by threatening to cut their sickness benefits.
Somehow I think they would not be very happy about that.
Given what I know about the Shaw Trust, I for one will never donate or help
charities again, if anyone waves a collection tin under my nose, they will
get a kick in the balls or a right hook, from now on that's the only
contribution they are going to get from me.
 
M

mart2306

And yet its not for you to decide what is a charitable aim. And
whether a charity is operating within that.
If you disagree with what the charity is doing, contact the charity
commission. I can't see how they are acting against their charitable
aims but you seem to have a problem with them.

Martin  <><

++++++++++++++++
Funny how your posts won't indent, always seems to happen when you are
running out of excuses. FYI, I have decided nothing, I am simply quoting
from some of the laws and regulations that charities are supposed to abide
by.
The issue here is, if we all must abide the laws of this country, I can't
see how the Shaw Trust can get away with saying they are a charity that
helps disabled people, when clearly they are not.

I think it is time the public were made aware of that fact, especially those
who donate goods and money to this organisation, and those who volunteer to
help them. How would they feel about donating if they knew Shaw Trust are
being paid £16.3 million on a 5 year contract, to order sick people to
attend work related courses by threatening to cut their sickness benefits..
Somehow I think they would not be very happy about that.
Given what I know about the Shaw Trust, I for one will never donate or help
charities again, if anyone waves a collection tin under my nose, they will
get a kick in the balls or a right hook, from now on that's the only
contribution they are going to get from me.
A 5 year contract for 16.5 million? Not a lot really - though times
that by the many contracts they do have and you get into serious
money.
For a 5 year contract on a purely local basis in one town I'd expect
to get around a half million or so - for a workload of a few hundred
people a year.
As I said, contact the charity commission - the organisation that
oversees charities and can at need strip them of charitable status.
Don't think they will with this charity but go right ahead.

The good news for you is that regardless of how you feel about
charities, they will still help you. Your refusal to donate or help
them doesn't matter.

And if you have spare change, some of the non-charities may want to
shake a collection tin under your nose. Amnesty International
perhaps.

Martin <><
 
N

Niteawk

A 5 year contract for 16.5 million? Not a lot really - though times
that by the many contracts they do have and you get into serious
money.
For a 5 year contract on a purely local basis in one town I'd expect
to get around a half million or so - for a workload of a few hundred
people a year.





+++++++++++++++++++
Yes, I forgot about that,16.3 mil is for my area, and that is only 1
contract for 5 yrs. If you add all the contracts up, you are looking at a
few hundred million within one sector, don't even think about what it costs
for New Deal and A4e. When you know money is being wasted like that, it
makes me wonder what the hell the government is talking about when they say
they are trying to kick start the economy. Talking about cuts and saving
when they are wasting billions on nothing. I think they could save money by
installing a furnace at No 10, then get all the MP's they can find if they
can find them, to shovel cash straight into the furnace. I predict this
would save them several billions if not trillions.We could host the olympics
for the next 100 years on they money this would save, the only downside is
this might create a few jobs by accident.

Dont forget the clocks go forward by 1 hour, that's an extra hours pay for
you next week.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

mart2306

A 5 year contract for 16.5 million? Not a lot really - though times
that by the many contracts they do have and you get into serious
money.
For a 5 year contract on a purely local basis in one town I'd expect
to get around a half million or so  -  for a workload of a few hundred
people a year.

+++++++++++++++++++
Yes, I forgot about that,16.3 mil is for my area, and that is only 1
contract for 5 yrs. If you add all the contracts up, you are looking at a
few hundred million within one sector, don't even think about what it costs
for New Deal and A4e. When you know money is being wasted like that, it
makes me wonder what the hell the government is talking about when they say
they are trying to kick start the economy. Talking about cuts and saving
when they are wasting billions on nothing. I think they could save money by
installing a furnace at No 10, then get all the MP's they can find if they
can find them, to shovel cash straight into the furnace. I predict this
would save them several billions if not trillions.We could host the olympics
for the next 100 years on they money this would save, the only downside is
this might create a few jobs by accident.

Dont forget the clocks go forward by 1 hour, that's an extra hours pay for
you next week.
I don't think I've ever met anyone who gets an extra hours pay for
clocks going forward in the early hours of a Spring Sunday morning. Is
this something unique to your area?

Martin <><
 
N

Niteawk

I don't think I've ever met anyone who gets an extra hours pay for
clocks going forward in the early hours of a Spring Sunday morning. Is
this something unique to your area?

Martin <><

+++++++++++++

As everything seems to be the exact opposite where you live, I thought it
might apply to you. So now we know there is at least one thing you have in
common with the rest of the country. ;)
 
M

mart2306

I don't think I've ever met anyone who gets an extra hours pay for
clocks going forward in the early hours of a Spring Sunday morning. Is
this something unique to your area?

Martin  <><

+++++++++++++

As everything seems to be the exact opposite where you live, I thought it
might apply to you. So now we know there is at least one thing you have in
common with the rest of the country. ;)
Plenty of things in common here with the rest of the country. A few
unique - highest unemployment (according to local press), the only
town to cancel its illuminations, other stuff.

Martin <><
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Niteawk

Plenty of things in common here with the rest of the country. A few
unique - highest unemployment (according to local press), the only
town to cancel its illuminations, other stuff.

Martin <><

++++++++++++++++++


I see you put "according to local press" on unemployment, but not according
to your charity organisation who finds work for people no doubt. ;)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top