23rd Dec 2013
Guardian - Despair on the frontline of Britain's homelessness crisis
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/23/homelessness-crisis-shelter-charity-helpline
23 Dec 2013 23:15
Also i've been homeless for a stretch, so i've earnt "my first homelessness badge", and i've currently been sanctioned/disallowed (the ability to survive) all the while donig what was required of me. The fact we live in the U.K and that its supposedly a first world country, and there are people on the streets or starving, because no-one has challenged the ruthless benefits cuts lately is fucking disgraceful. It really is a world apart for those struggling to pay bills/starving e.t.c, and the politicians who think it o.k to laugh whilst discussing such things.
About time people stood-up and said no more. I've done just that. I refused to work for agencies because i see them as a stealth job/rights tax, and turned down a zero hours cointract job for similar reasoning. To be fair. I'm a free-man and i will not be a slave.
In response to lsutton
Then go out and help a homeless person. If your worried about money being mispent. You have feet and the ability to interface with your fellow human-beings. ;)
23 Dec 2013 23:49
In response to chrisoleary
Theres many ways to fight a battle buddy, raising awareness is one arm of that. Direct action another. Each arm is important. ;).
But yeah if people want to criticise, it often helps to have suggestions or ideas to fix a problem handy to discuss as well.
You work for a uinion eh? Waht the fuck have you been wasting your time on, what with the rife proliferation of job recruitment agencies in this country. The fact almost every job is now via an agency, do you not think that might have a massive effect on workers rights. i.e hired/fired all the rights in the favour of the employer. The fact i see 80-90% of all jobs on the UJM website are now via agencies. I trust you guys/gals are actually doing somethnig about this fucknig horrendous stealth rights revokation?
23 Dec 2013 23:52
ObiDanKinobi:-
Cos if i was part of a trade union, that would be the first mother fucking thing i would make well known. Its all corporate mobility at the expense of worker rights/social mobility. The balance has tipped so fucking far in the favour of big business, and agencies/zero hours contracts e.t.c. That you must have a set of balls to make it known you work for a trade union. Waht the actual fuck are you doing to stop this from happening pal? Thats what i want to know.
24 Dec 2013 01:30
ObiDanKinobi:-
I completely and whole heartedly, disagree with you useron the net. People can be responsible for their own lives, i'm not saying everyone should have some sugar coated fairy tale existense at the expense of others, however in a reasonable society, there must be a way for people to make a living, and to do so honestly and fairly. All honesty and fairness has been whittled away. Corporations exploit the labour market and pay the majority of workers a token minmum wage subsistense wage. However in this country no-one seems to want to stand up and question this, and the fact the u.k has one of the highest rates of living, and yet one of the lowest wage rates.
To abandon those who need help and say you must fend for yourself, without any help, is not the sign of a healthy society. It is the sign of a rotten one.
In an ideal world yes people should be able to work a job, feel like an appreciated member of society and have a decent wage. However that is not the case. Corporate mobility and corporate agendas have permeated the very fabric of this soceity, and these agendsa serve only one purpose, to maximise profits at the expense of pretty much everything else.
Standing up to this, is now a vitally important thing to do, its something i've done and will co0ntinue to do, it doesn't make me a shirker or a skiver or a free-loader it makes me a caring human-being who is genuinly distressed by the way this country is heading, and the fact i will stand uyp for the future generations at the expense of sanctions/dissalowance whatever only further emboldens my cause. And i'm sure others are also standing up and questioning this, and rightly so. We need to rethink this model we are currently using as its obviously not working.
Wednesday, 7 October 2015
29) Guardian Newspaper Discussion RE: Zero hours contracts
20th Dec 2013
Guardian - It's not zero-hours contracts that are the problem, it's the bosses who abuse them
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/19/zero-hours-contracts-vince-cable-crack-down-exploitation
ObiDanKinobi:-
No Ruth, Zero-hours contracts are the problem.
Along with job recruitment agencies, they have now formed a stealth jobs/rights tax.
However agencies are controllable via the piece of legislation C181 - Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181). However currently they have not been regualted which is why if you look on the UJM website you'll see pretty much all jobs are now via agencies.
I have just been "disallowed" for refusing to utilize agencies, and am currently short on paying rent because i've stood up for mine and the next generations rights. Because who the fuck else will. Those who do, i salute you. Those who don't, just think of themselves and tow the completely fucking fascist line. I'm alright jack.
If there's a boat that needs rocking, its right now.
The whole term "disallowance" is a joke in itself. What it actually entails is a period of starvation for at least 14 days of 0 income. Followed by a joke of "hardship allowance" for a period thereafter. Its not "disallowance" its starvation its as simple as that. To use such a friendly sounding word, completely glosses over the cold, hard truth, that you are having your only living allowance stopped for a period of time, sending you into a freefall where you must fend for yourself. This is madness. It will see a rising crime rate across the country, particularly in the area of theft i suspect, as people who are actually doing what is required of them, are having their ability to exist removed from them. Well the truh is those people have a God-damned right to exist, and they will be justified in their crime if they have no other option but to steal to exist. For if the state has failed them, why the hell should they abide by laws that are detrimental to their very well-being/existence?
I have documented all my dealings with this seemingly failed state, including 2 previous "disallowance" decisions, which were overturned, and the current one that i am appealing against.
I would appreciate it, if either you or one of your colleagues got in touch, so we can discuss bringing some of these injustices into the light,
Warm regards
- dan
20 Dec 2013 01:50
I approached your paper before with the following....
Letter to the guardian.....
Hi there,
I have a story with regards to JSA/sanctions being imho unlawfully imposed.
Would this be the best e-mail address to raise such issues?
I can go into a lot more detail, however the short of it is i've been sanctioned twice this year thus far, both times there were extremely dubious/nefarious reasonings behind said sanctions. Including but not limited to..
The departmental omittance of various steps i did to look for work. The outright fabrication of jobs, i allegedly could of applied for, i.e jobs that didn't exist, or were totally unsuitable. I have material proof to this account. Granted both times after appealing, they were overturned in my favour, and i didn't think to pursue highlighting this any further. However in retrospect perhaps i should of.
Which brings us to the current time. My current claim has been sent to a "decision makers" once again. Thus resulting in a penalisation, before a judgement has been made, as regardless of outcome it would appear my only living allowance will be delayed.
This is the complete antithesis of natural law. In that one is unduly/unjustly punished before the "decision makers" even have a chance to consider a judgement on the case. This has happened to me twice in the past as aforementioned, where a "doubt" has been raised, my benefits have been sanctioned, and i have then appealed and had this overturned. This is unjust and wrongful punishment, and i would like to, if i can draw closer scrutiny to such things.
I have done what was required of me as far as i'm aware in good conscience.
I have duly resisted the calls to sign up for a UJM account, regardless of it now being apparently a mandatory condition, under data privacy (via third party operators i.e Monster inc) concerns.
I have detailed most if not all encounters with the jobcentre and have various transcripts (as far as my recollection serves me) and photocopied forms available for scrutiny upon further request.
The short of it is, (or the long of it, as it now appears if people who are doing what is required of them, are having their only living allowance suspended, or sanctioned. Then this is massively wrong.
These "sanctions" e.t.c are not just "terms" they have very real and usually very dire consequences. And if a state cannot provide the basics for its citizens in times of need, such as food/shelter and warmth, especially when those citizens are adhering to what is required of them by law, then i fear deeply for the future of this country.
Perhaps we can do something about this.
Please don't hesitate to get in touch, if you would like to call/meet thats fine. Just give me a time and a place, and providing i haven't half starved to death, and its within bicycle range (about 10 miles) of Stafford, i would be happy to meet to discuss this matter further.
As much as it pains me to say it as well, I can, if required, post a link to my Facebook page, where upon i have endeavoured to detail my encounters with the wonderful benefit system in the most elaborate/exquisite of clarity.
While your at it, perhaps you could also do an article on that which i consider one of the greatest of blights to this country. Job recruitment agencies. How 80-90% of all jobs available (this proportion has increased greatly in the past couple of years, since i drafted the letter below) are via these parasitic entities, and how the government, if it actually wanted to look after its people, (there's a novel idea) could make sure these are all regulated under the legislation "C181 Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997."
Here is a letter that i drafted, but never sent, previously on the matter. Your more than welcome to publish it should you deem it fit for purpose. I'm sorry to combine two issues, but i kind of feel this is relevant, how peoples rights are being whittled away in this country on the sly. And what actually trying to stand up for your rights, will nowadays entail. Usually outright hunger in varying degrees of severity.
20 Dec 2013 01:51
"REDACTED" Mr Cameron/ Mr Clegg.
I am writing this letter with regard to the current job situation as relates to job recruitment agencies.
I have no particular political allegiance and a strong distrust of politicians in general, perhaps with good reason, perhaps not.
Anyway to the point.
I feel i should mention coming from a 'laymans' perspective, the alarming amount of job vacancies that are currently offered through 'job recruitment agencies'.
Having been to a local job centre recently it is in round-about figures, 30-40% of all jobs that are offered via these organizations. (Locally at least, i'm sure there will be regional variations obviously).
These organizations are a massive burden on our society, they are a parasitic entity feeding off the very life-blood of our economy.
I believe they also have an extremely destabilizing effect on the economy as a whole.
Please allow me to explain. Please do not consider the following patronizing, it is merely my humble understanding.
Job recruitment agencies are designed to allow a corporation to be lazy, and not take the time and effort to properly recruit employees for its ranks. That is the cover story anyways.
In reality they are the king-pin in a corporate chess-game, as they will, unchecked, allow a corporation to remove all its workers from one country and relocate at their behest to a cheaper country of their choosing. Because the workers have no rights or very limited rights due to being employed by the job recruitment agency. I.e hired/fired with 1 days notice.
Now logically speaking they say the working class are the very cogs of society, they are the purchasers, they keep the economy rolling and not stagnant. O.k so when you have such a massive percentage of workers perhaps as high as 30-40% with no sort of job security whatsoever, and being paid minimum wage, via job recruitment agencies, it is as though you are trying to build on a constantly moving sand-pit. Because people don't have job security they will be more shrewd, and if you have more people being shrewd then that means they're not out there buying things to keep the economy going.
This i feel is detrimental to the nations interests, and economy.
My humble suggestion would be a job recruitment agency 'quota'. (If i had my way i would ban them completely, but i realise that corporations have become fairly powerful in the world and thus i guess it calls for diplomacy, even though they are not democratically elected, but hey ho thats another story).
Put a cap on the amount of jobs available through job recruitment agencies, perhaps 5 or 10%.
That way the old-school way of doing business can return, and those doing good business and treating their workers fairly, will prosper, those who don't will not. It will also force a measure of "corporate responsibility" in that corporations will be forced to employ their employees directly, thus giving workers more rights and maintaining a more stable/happier work-base and thus-forth economy.
I realize upon briefly reading "C181 Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997". That job recruitment agencies are directly controllable by the government.
Thankyou for taking the time to read this message, and i look forward to your correspondence on the matter, in the near future.
Regards,
Dan J*** - Concerned U.K Resident."
Anyways, i look forward to hearing from you shortly.
And hopefully we can work together, to help draw such issues to discussion.
Thanks for your time,
Warm Regards
- dan
Note it was 30-40% of jobs via agencies about 2 years ago when i first drafted the above letter, its now more like 80-90%
Edited for spelling & Names Redacted 8/10/15
Guardian - It's not zero-hours contracts that are the problem, it's the bosses who abuse them
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/19/zero-hours-contracts-vince-cable-crack-down-exploitation
ObiDanKinobi:-
No Ruth, Zero-hours contracts are the problem.
Along with job recruitment agencies, they have now formed a stealth jobs/rights tax.
However agencies are controllable via the piece of legislation C181 - Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 (No. 181). However currently they have not been regualted which is why if you look on the UJM website you'll see pretty much all jobs are now via agencies.
I have just been "disallowed" for refusing to utilize agencies, and am currently short on paying rent because i've stood up for mine and the next generations rights. Because who the fuck else will. Those who do, i salute you. Those who don't, just think of themselves and tow the completely fucking fascist line. I'm alright jack.
If there's a boat that needs rocking, its right now.
The whole term "disallowance" is a joke in itself. What it actually entails is a period of starvation for at least 14 days of 0 income. Followed by a joke of "hardship allowance" for a period thereafter. Its not "disallowance" its starvation its as simple as that. To use such a friendly sounding word, completely glosses over the cold, hard truth, that you are having your only living allowance stopped for a period of time, sending you into a freefall where you must fend for yourself. This is madness. It will see a rising crime rate across the country, particularly in the area of theft i suspect, as people who are actually doing what is required of them, are having their ability to exist removed from them. Well the truh is those people have a God-damned right to exist, and they will be justified in their crime if they have no other option but to steal to exist. For if the state has failed them, why the hell should they abide by laws that are detrimental to their very well-being/existence?
I have documented all my dealings with this seemingly failed state, including 2 previous "disallowance" decisions, which were overturned, and the current one that i am appealing against.
I would appreciate it, if either you or one of your colleagues got in touch, so we can discuss bringing some of these injustices into the light,
Warm regards
- dan
20 Dec 2013 01:50
I approached your paper before with the following....
Letter to the guardian.....
Hi there,
I have a story with regards to JSA/sanctions being imho unlawfully imposed.
Would this be the best e-mail address to raise such issues?
I can go into a lot more detail, however the short of it is i've been sanctioned twice this year thus far, both times there were extremely dubious/nefarious reasonings behind said sanctions. Including but not limited to..
The departmental omittance of various steps i did to look for work. The outright fabrication of jobs, i allegedly could of applied for, i.e jobs that didn't exist, or were totally unsuitable. I have material proof to this account. Granted both times after appealing, they were overturned in my favour, and i didn't think to pursue highlighting this any further. However in retrospect perhaps i should of.
Which brings us to the current time. My current claim has been sent to a "decision makers" once again. Thus resulting in a penalisation, before a judgement has been made, as regardless of outcome it would appear my only living allowance will be delayed.
This is the complete antithesis of natural law. In that one is unduly/unjustly punished before the "decision makers" even have a chance to consider a judgement on the case. This has happened to me twice in the past as aforementioned, where a "doubt" has been raised, my benefits have been sanctioned, and i have then appealed and had this overturned. This is unjust and wrongful punishment, and i would like to, if i can draw closer scrutiny to such things.
I have done what was required of me as far as i'm aware in good conscience.
I have duly resisted the calls to sign up for a UJM account, regardless of it now being apparently a mandatory condition, under data privacy (via third party operators i.e Monster inc) concerns.
I have detailed most if not all encounters with the jobcentre and have various transcripts (as far as my recollection serves me) and photocopied forms available for scrutiny upon further request.
The short of it is, (or the long of it, as it now appears if people who are doing what is required of them, are having their only living allowance suspended, or sanctioned. Then this is massively wrong.
These "sanctions" e.t.c are not just "terms" they have very real and usually very dire consequences. And if a state cannot provide the basics for its citizens in times of need, such as food/shelter and warmth, especially when those citizens are adhering to what is required of them by law, then i fear deeply for the future of this country.
Perhaps we can do something about this.
Please don't hesitate to get in touch, if you would like to call/meet thats fine. Just give me a time and a place, and providing i haven't half starved to death, and its within bicycle range (about 10 miles) of Stafford, i would be happy to meet to discuss this matter further.
As much as it pains me to say it as well, I can, if required, post a link to my Facebook page, where upon i have endeavoured to detail my encounters with the wonderful benefit system in the most elaborate/exquisite of clarity.
While your at it, perhaps you could also do an article on that which i consider one of the greatest of blights to this country. Job recruitment agencies. How 80-90% of all jobs available (this proportion has increased greatly in the past couple of years, since i drafted the letter below) are via these parasitic entities, and how the government, if it actually wanted to look after its people, (there's a novel idea) could make sure these are all regulated under the legislation "C181 Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997."
Here is a letter that i drafted, but never sent, previously on the matter. Your more than welcome to publish it should you deem it fit for purpose. I'm sorry to combine two issues, but i kind of feel this is relevant, how peoples rights are being whittled away in this country on the sly. And what actually trying to stand up for your rights, will nowadays entail. Usually outright hunger in varying degrees of severity.
20 Dec 2013 01:51
"REDACTED" Mr Cameron/ Mr Clegg.
I am writing this letter with regard to the current job situation as relates to job recruitment agencies.
I have no particular political allegiance and a strong distrust of politicians in general, perhaps with good reason, perhaps not.
Anyway to the point.
I feel i should mention coming from a 'laymans' perspective, the alarming amount of job vacancies that are currently offered through 'job recruitment agencies'.
Having been to a local job centre recently it is in round-about figures, 30-40% of all jobs that are offered via these organizations. (Locally at least, i'm sure there will be regional variations obviously).
These organizations are a massive burden on our society, they are a parasitic entity feeding off the very life-blood of our economy.
I believe they also have an extremely destabilizing effect on the economy as a whole.
Please allow me to explain. Please do not consider the following patronizing, it is merely my humble understanding.
Job recruitment agencies are designed to allow a corporation to be lazy, and not take the time and effort to properly recruit employees for its ranks. That is the cover story anyways.
In reality they are the king-pin in a corporate chess-game, as they will, unchecked, allow a corporation to remove all its workers from one country and relocate at their behest to a cheaper country of their choosing. Because the workers have no rights or very limited rights due to being employed by the job recruitment agency. I.e hired/fired with 1 days notice.
Now logically speaking they say the working class are the very cogs of society, they are the purchasers, they keep the economy rolling and not stagnant. O.k so when you have such a massive percentage of workers perhaps as high as 30-40% with no sort of job security whatsoever, and being paid minimum wage, via job recruitment agencies, it is as though you are trying to build on a constantly moving sand-pit. Because people don't have job security they will be more shrewd, and if you have more people being shrewd then that means they're not out there buying things to keep the economy going.
This i feel is detrimental to the nations interests, and economy.
My humble suggestion would be a job recruitment agency 'quota'. (If i had my way i would ban them completely, but i realise that corporations have become fairly powerful in the world and thus i guess it calls for diplomacy, even though they are not democratically elected, but hey ho thats another story).
Put a cap on the amount of jobs available through job recruitment agencies, perhaps 5 or 10%.
That way the old-school way of doing business can return, and those doing good business and treating their workers fairly, will prosper, those who don't will not. It will also force a measure of "corporate responsibility" in that corporations will be forced to employ their employees directly, thus giving workers more rights and maintaining a more stable/happier work-base and thus-forth economy.
I realize upon briefly reading "C181 Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997". That job recruitment agencies are directly controllable by the government.
Thankyou for taking the time to read this message, and i look forward to your correspondence on the matter, in the near future.
Regards,
Dan J*** - Concerned U.K Resident."
Anyways, i look forward to hearing from you shortly.
And hopefully we can work together, to help draw such issues to discussion.
Thanks for your time,
Warm Regards
- dan
Note it was 30-40% of jobs via agencies about 2 years ago when i first drafted the above letter, its now more like 80-90%
Edited for spelling & Names Redacted 8/10/15
28) Personal Data Disclaimer
14th Dec 2013
For the record. There is/was/and never will be ANY implied consent to any of my personal data. This includes, but is not limited to. Name/Adress/Tel no/Health records/DNA sequencing.
Any consent that was attained via any sort of threat of punitive action against me, Was as far as i interpret, obtained under Duress, and thus not legally enforceable. Thus, void.
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151865835291089
For the record. There is/was/and never will be ANY implied consent to any of my personal data. This includes, but is not limited to. Name/Adress/Tel no/Health records/DNA sequencing.
Any consent that was attained via any sort of threat of punitive action against me, Was as far as i interpret, obtained under Duress, and thus not legally enforceable. Thus, void.
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151865835291089
27) Unlawful state
13th Dec 2013
So once again, i will have to defend myself from an over-oppressive/ seemingly unlawful state. All the while maintaining a "jobsearch" for a reduced amount of £43.00 p/w.
With a 2 week "free-fall" period of no income whatsoever. Which included a period of what i suppose the government would call reasonable (mild) starvation. (about 1 or 2 very small meals per day).
All of which has been imposed unlawfully and in my opinion extremely unfairly in an effort to make politicians and local departments figures "look good".
I have refused to work for either zero hours contracts or through agencies as a matter of principle, however it seems this is what i have been deemed to be "not actively seeking work" for. Every job that i allegedly "could of applied for" is now via a job recruitment agency.
From here on, i will again be documenting in full, every encounter with the government. As i fully believe in transparency and accountability.
I will be uploading the ASE form, which again is the internal form that they used to make claims against me. (And which this time around they were EXTREMELY reluctant to give out, by excuse that they wanted to do things Digitally, to which i held my ground and insisted they give me the ability to take some time to refute the allegations against me.).
I have not heard back from the guardian yet, however i am going to collate all the previous encounters and the current one, hopefully into some form of blog (Good idea Mark, should of listened to ya dude before once again approaching the reasonably respectable papers and/or circulating such things in any way i can.
I will not suffer in silence, and i will do what i can to expose the wrongs that are being perpetrated against some of the most needy in this country.
The following was written directly after encountering the jobcentre, immediately after being "disallowed" So it was written approximately 8 or 9 days ago. In the interests of transparency i will include all encounters.
Approx 26/12/13:- *Editors Note/Error (I don't know why i wrote the 26/12/13 as the date there, as aforementioned it was approx 8-9 days earlier which would of been around the 4th or 5th Dec 2013.)
"Having just been down to the jobcentre, and being talked to by a completely unprofessional entity called Liz. Who rather than trying to allay any fears i had, in a way you might expect a civil servant to discharge her duties, instead kept trying to usher me towards the exit, accompanied by a couple of "security guards".
However all was not in vain. I've found out a couple of disturbing facts/procured some intel by the encounter.
My first request was for that of an ASE form, the internal form that is used when sending "decisions" to decision makers, it documents all the alleged positions that i could of apparently of applied for.
In the past i have used this form to defend myself, by seeing what allegations were being made against me, and then refuting and successfully overturning them in due course.
However this request was turned down. Apparently Liz said that there had been a "change of procedure" meaning instead that i had to attend another interview where any further details could be added. And there was no mention of the ASE form.
At this point i tried to make the understandable argument, that this is decreasing transparency, and that basically i have had my only living allowance stopped contrary not only to natural law, but now that i cannot actually dispute the claims against me. As i cannot see what i am alleged to of done/not done. Perhaps though Liz was somewhat confused, as further down the line, i'm assuming the right to appeal is still upheld, at least i hope to God it is. However this is indeed a change as before i was able to refute this from pretty much the offset, as far as my memory serves me. I will hold fire on this for the time being. I do not see in the name of transparency how giving access to the ASE form and the ability to dispute this, could/should be withheld, as in order to dispute the disallowance it will be a necessary disclosure.
So i said i would be documenting the case, and more than likely writing to the papers. I said i would be recording any conversations in the future. This instantly didn't go down well, as one of the private security guards piped up (i didn't catch the young fellows name) "this is private property, you can't film on it." I replied "this is a public building". To which i was given the somewhat startling response "this is crown property".
If this is indeed true. Then a few questions need to be asked really don't they? What the hell is the monarchy doing engaging in a political fashion? Administering civil service from a private property and then preventing the civil servants from being scrutinised due to this clause is completely contrary to an open transparent democracy.
I said "you have taken my picture on your security cameras without my prior permission on the way in, so i am entitled to make a copy myself".
At which point she said "you'll be searched on your way in, if you try to do that". To which i informed her that she wouldn't be searching me, as there would need to be a police officer present, and good reason of any intention of breaking a law.
I propose that maintaining transparency in critical governmental services such as the administration of welfare benefit, by means of documenting my dealings with said people, is in the national interest of this country, especially given the fact i have hard proof of corruption from my previous dealings. This among other terms, are what i will be telling the police officer, assigned to search\deal with me, if needs be."
LMV Gosh dan you must be really stressed
LMV Did you contact that woman we were talking about
Dan Kinobi Well L**** this is now the third time of actually having my ability to exist stopped, on extremely spurious grounds.(Twice it was overturned in the past, after writing a letter,as to why i disagree with the decision).
I will be writing a similarly lengthy assignment this time of asking. I am also going to try and put all the dealings, dated and in chronological order, into a sort of "case study" in the form of a blog of sorts. So that it will be easily accessible by anyone who wishes to understand the situation more deeply. Once collated, the pieces will be in "place" so to speak. And from there i can pursue further illumination of the topic, in general. No i don't stress. Everything will be alright. Jesus said "don't worry". Lol so i don't. I do what i have to do, and what i believe is right, that's all.
Dan Kinobi And no, not yet L****, i figure i'll get everything together first, and see what the outcome of this latest disallowance will be, once i appeal.
LMV Yes, Jesus also said the meek will inherited the world.
Dan Kinobi They will;)
Dan Kinobi But by meek he didn't mean..apathetic i don't think. He means meek as in humble to one another. I bellieve we must still resist those that seek to undermine others, who seek to dominate or lord over people. Back in the day i believe he called such people the "pharisees", and i'm sure we all remember the woes of the pharisees, and how if you do such things, to cut a long story short, you suck major balls.
Dan Kinobi As He came to serve us, so i think we should serve each other, i think this is what He meant by "meek". I interpret this in such a way, because if Jesus, who i believe is the son of God, was washing the sweaty/scabby feet of his disciples, then how much more is that a message that we should in good consciense serve (i.e help) each other.
Dan Kinobi I don't know why i wrote the 26/12/13 as the date there, as aforementioned it was approx 8-9 days earlier which would of been around the 4th or 5th Dec 2013.
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151865173401089
So once again, i will have to defend myself from an over-oppressive/ seemingly unlawful state. All the while maintaining a "jobsearch" for a reduced amount of £43.00 p/w.
With a 2 week "free-fall" period of no income whatsoever. Which included a period of what i suppose the government would call reasonable (mild) starvation. (about 1 or 2 very small meals per day).
All of which has been imposed unlawfully and in my opinion extremely unfairly in an effort to make politicians and local departments figures "look good".
I have refused to work for either zero hours contracts or through agencies as a matter of principle, however it seems this is what i have been deemed to be "not actively seeking work" for. Every job that i allegedly "could of applied for" is now via a job recruitment agency.
From here on, i will again be documenting in full, every encounter with the government. As i fully believe in transparency and accountability.
I will be uploading the ASE form, which again is the internal form that they used to make claims against me. (And which this time around they were EXTREMELY reluctant to give out, by excuse that they wanted to do things Digitally, to which i held my ground and insisted they give me the ability to take some time to refute the allegations against me.).
I have not heard back from the guardian yet, however i am going to collate all the previous encounters and the current one, hopefully into some form of blog (Good idea Mark, should of listened to ya dude before once again approaching the reasonably respectable papers and/or circulating such things in any way i can.
I will not suffer in silence, and i will do what i can to expose the wrongs that are being perpetrated against some of the most needy in this country.
The following was written directly after encountering the jobcentre, immediately after being "disallowed" So it was written approximately 8 or 9 days ago. In the interests of transparency i will include all encounters.
Approx 26/12/13:- *Editors Note/Error (I don't know why i wrote the 26/12/13 as the date there, as aforementioned it was approx 8-9 days earlier which would of been around the 4th or 5th Dec 2013.)
"Having just been down to the jobcentre, and being talked to by a completely unprofessional entity called Liz. Who rather than trying to allay any fears i had, in a way you might expect a civil servant to discharge her duties, instead kept trying to usher me towards the exit, accompanied by a couple of "security guards".
However all was not in vain. I've found out a couple of disturbing facts/procured some intel by the encounter.
My first request was for that of an ASE form, the internal form that is used when sending "decisions" to decision makers, it documents all the alleged positions that i could of apparently of applied for.
In the past i have used this form to defend myself, by seeing what allegations were being made against me, and then refuting and successfully overturning them in due course.
However this request was turned down. Apparently Liz said that there had been a "change of procedure" meaning instead that i had to attend another interview where any further details could be added. And there was no mention of the ASE form.
At this point i tried to make the understandable argument, that this is decreasing transparency, and that basically i have had my only living allowance stopped contrary not only to natural law, but now that i cannot actually dispute the claims against me. As i cannot see what i am alleged to of done/not done. Perhaps though Liz was somewhat confused, as further down the line, i'm assuming the right to appeal is still upheld, at least i hope to God it is. However this is indeed a change as before i was able to refute this from pretty much the offset, as far as my memory serves me. I will hold fire on this for the time being. I do not see in the name of transparency how giving access to the ASE form and the ability to dispute this, could/should be withheld, as in order to dispute the disallowance it will be a necessary disclosure.
So i said i would be documenting the case, and more than likely writing to the papers. I said i would be recording any conversations in the future. This instantly didn't go down well, as one of the private security guards piped up (i didn't catch the young fellows name) "this is private property, you can't film on it." I replied "this is a public building". To which i was given the somewhat startling response "this is crown property".
If this is indeed true. Then a few questions need to be asked really don't they? What the hell is the monarchy doing engaging in a political fashion? Administering civil service from a private property and then preventing the civil servants from being scrutinised due to this clause is completely contrary to an open transparent democracy.
I said "you have taken my picture on your security cameras without my prior permission on the way in, so i am entitled to make a copy myself".
At which point she said "you'll be searched on your way in, if you try to do that". To which i informed her that she wouldn't be searching me, as there would need to be a police officer present, and good reason of any intention of breaking a law.
I propose that maintaining transparency in critical governmental services such as the administration of welfare benefit, by means of documenting my dealings with said people, is in the national interest of this country, especially given the fact i have hard proof of corruption from my previous dealings. This among other terms, are what i will be telling the police officer, assigned to search\deal with me, if needs be."
LMV Gosh dan you must be really stressed
LMV Did you contact that woman we were talking about
Dan Kinobi Well L**** this is now the third time of actually having my ability to exist stopped, on extremely spurious grounds.(Twice it was overturned in the past, after writing a letter,as to why i disagree with the decision).
I will be writing a similarly lengthy assignment this time of asking. I am also going to try and put all the dealings, dated and in chronological order, into a sort of "case study" in the form of a blog of sorts. So that it will be easily accessible by anyone who wishes to understand the situation more deeply. Once collated, the pieces will be in "place" so to speak. And from there i can pursue further illumination of the topic, in general. No i don't stress. Everything will be alright. Jesus said "don't worry". Lol so i don't. I do what i have to do, and what i believe is right, that's all.
Dan Kinobi And no, not yet L****, i figure i'll get everything together first, and see what the outcome of this latest disallowance will be, once i appeal.
LMV Yes, Jesus also said the meek will inherited the world.
Dan Kinobi They will;)
Dan Kinobi But by meek he didn't mean..apathetic i don't think. He means meek as in humble to one another. I bellieve we must still resist those that seek to undermine others, who seek to dominate or lord over people. Back in the day i believe he called such people the "pharisees", and i'm sure we all remember the woes of the pharisees, and how if you do such things, to cut a long story short, you suck major balls.
Dan Kinobi As He came to serve us, so i think we should serve each other, i think this is what He meant by "meek". I interpret this in such a way, because if Jesus, who i believe is the son of God, was washing the sweaty/scabby feet of his disciples, then how much more is that a message that we should in good consciense serve (i.e help) each other.
Dan Kinobi I don't know why i wrote the 26/12/13 as the date there, as aforementioned it was approx 8-9 days earlier which would of been around the 4th or 5th Dec 2013.
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151865173401089
26) The onset of fascism
10th Dec 2013
Time to tool up my friends. The onset of fascism is upon us.
I have had my ability to survive under the guise of "disallowance" removed from me. However i have the natural right to survive. As defined by natural law.
The government is now justifying most crime in that it is depriving people the fundamental right to live/exist, even when they happen to be doing what is required of them. Whenever a claimant is "disallowed" they are for at least a period of 14 days completely rejected by society, and essentially cast out to fend for themselves. Unless they are a vulnerable group, and while i agree in defending the most vulnerable in society, the others do still have a right to exist.
This is all well and good if we were living in the middle ages, however we are not, and given the fact that some people in this country are living in total luxury whilst others are now being rejected from society, WILL lead to increased crime, i suspect, most specifically theft, and those perpetrating it, will be sadly justified in doing so, in that they do have the fundamental RIGHT to survive/exist.
The anger at injustice will grow, and the foundations of our society will be rocked. All in the name of short sighted greed, on behalf of politicans, intent on "looking good" or at making the facts/figures look good, co-ersed/pupeteered by corporations who think they can reap all the rewards without administering the responsibilities that come attached to them.
Sad days, for our very society is being savagely undermined by such people. And a nation that is divided against itself, in this world, will be open to attack from many more angles.
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151859730076089
Time to tool up my friends. The onset of fascism is upon us.
I have had my ability to survive under the guise of "disallowance" removed from me. However i have the natural right to survive. As defined by natural law.
The government is now justifying most crime in that it is depriving people the fundamental right to live/exist, even when they happen to be doing what is required of them. Whenever a claimant is "disallowed" they are for at least a period of 14 days completely rejected by society, and essentially cast out to fend for themselves. Unless they are a vulnerable group, and while i agree in defending the most vulnerable in society, the others do still have a right to exist.
This is all well and good if we were living in the middle ages, however we are not, and given the fact that some people in this country are living in total luxury whilst others are now being rejected from society, WILL lead to increased crime, i suspect, most specifically theft, and those perpetrating it, will be sadly justified in doing so, in that they do have the fundamental RIGHT to survive/exist.
The anger at injustice will grow, and the foundations of our society will be rocked. All in the name of short sighted greed, on behalf of politicans, intent on "looking good" or at making the facts/figures look good, co-ersed/pupeteered by corporations who think they can reap all the rewards without administering the responsibilities that come attached to them.
Sad days, for our very society is being savagely undermined by such people. And a nation that is divided against itself, in this world, will be open to attack from many more angles.
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151859730076089
25) "Dissalowed" again
6th Dec 2013
Claim has been "disallowed" yet again. I will be returning to do battle with the empire on monday, with the procurement of the ASE form that they use to try and sanction people with. This time i will be taking names, and as far as i can transcripts of everyone i deal with. Has anyone got a tape recorder i can borrow? Cheers.
- dan
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151851387591089
Claim has been "disallowed" yet again. I will be returning to do battle with the empire on monday, with the procurement of the ASE form that they use to try and sanction people with. This time i will be taking names, and as far as i can transcripts of everyone i deal with. Has anyone got a tape recorder i can borrow? Cheers.
- dan
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151851387591089
24) Hardship interview
3rd Dec 2013
Filled out all forms given to me, that were for hardship payment interview today. Attended interview. Was told I would be contacted in 3 hours maximum about decision on hardship payment.....
5 hours later, and I get a call from a man who's barely audible, casually informing me, that i have not filled out my jsa1, which means no decision can be made on the hardship payment today.
Absolute joke.
*Update*...received phonecall from local jobcentre, from courteous lady saying, wires have been crossed, no need for jsa1 until decision has been made. Although will not hear outcome of decision until friday. Lol sigh.
If i had to make a suggestion i would say this. If a claim gets sent to a decision makers, make sure a decision is made one way or the other, before the claimant is due to receive JSA payment.
I.e so that if they have been found to of done what is required of them, they are in no way shape or form penalised. This should be the very bare minimum in my opinion. And the blatant abuse of sanctioning still needs to be addressed, most seriously.
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151845590501089
Filled out all forms given to me, that were for hardship payment interview today. Attended interview. Was told I would be contacted in 3 hours maximum about decision on hardship payment.....
5 hours later, and I get a call from a man who's barely audible, casually informing me, that i have not filled out my jsa1, which means no decision can be made on the hardship payment today.
Absolute joke.
*Update*...received phonecall from local jobcentre, from courteous lady saying, wires have been crossed, no need for jsa1 until decision has been made. Although will not hear outcome of decision until friday. Lol sigh.
If i had to make a suggestion i would say this. If a claim gets sent to a decision makers, make sure a decision is made one way or the other, before the claimant is due to receive JSA payment.
I.e so that if they have been found to of done what is required of them, they are in no way shape or form penalised. This should be the very bare minimum in my opinion. And the blatant abuse of sanctioning still needs to be addressed, most seriously.
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151845590501089
23) Letter to the Guardian newspaper
3rd Dec 2013
Hi there,
I have a story with regards to JSA/sanctions being imho unlawfully imposed.
Would this be the best e-mail address to raise such issues?
I can go into a lot more detail, however the short of it is i've been sanctioned twice this year thus far, both times there were extremely dubious/nefarious reasonings behind said sanctions. Including but not limited to..
The departmental omittance of various steps i did to look for work. The outright fabrication of jobs, i allegedly could of applied for, i.e jobs that didn't exist, or were totally unsuitable. I have material proof to this account. Granted both times after appealing, they were overturned in my favour, and i didn't think to pursue highlighting this any further. However in retrospect perhaps i should of.
Which brings us to the current time. My current claim has been sent to a "decision makers" once again. Thus resulting in a penalisation, before a judgement has been made, as regardless of outcome it would appear my only living allowance will be delayed.
This is the complete antithesis of natural law. In that one is unduly/unjustly punished before the "decision makers" even have a chance to consider a judgement on the case. This has happened to me twice in the past as aforementioned, where a "doubt" has been raised, my benefits have been sanctioned, and i have then appealed and had this overturned. This is unjust and wrongful punishment, and i would like to, if i can draw closer scrutiny to such things.
I have done what was required of me as far as i'm aware in good conscience.
I have duly resisted the calls to sign up for a UJM account, regardless of it now being apparently a mandatory condition, under data privacy (via third party operators i.e Monster inc) concerns.
I have detailed most if not all encounters with the jobcentre and have various transcripts (as far as my recollection serves me) and photocopied forms available for scrutiny upon further request.
The short of it is, (or the long of it, as it now appears if people who are doing what is required of them, are having their only living allowance suspended, or sanctioned. Then this is massively wrong.
These "sanctions" e.t.c are not just "terms" they have very real and usually very dire consequences. And if a state cannot provide the basics for its citizens in times of need, such as food/shelter and warmth, especially when those citizens are adhering to what is required of them by law, then i fear deeply for the future of this country.
Perhaps we can do something about this.
Please don't hesitate to get in touch, if you would like to call/meet thats fine. Just give me a time and a place, and providing i haven't half starved to death, and its within bicycle range (about 10 miles) of Stafford, i would be happy to meet to discuss this matter further.
As much as it pains me to say it as well, I can, if required, post a link to my Facebook page, where upon i have endeavoured to detail my encounters with the wonderful benefit system in the most elaborate/exquisite of clarity.
While your at it, perhaps you could also do an article on that which i consider one of the greatest of blights to this country. Job recruitment agencies. How 80-90% of all jobs available (this proportion has increased greatly in the past couple of years, since i drafted the letter below) are via these parasitic entities, and how the government, if it actually wanted to look after its people, (theres a novel idea) could make sure these are all regulated under the legislation "C181 Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997."
Here is a letter that i drafted, but never sent, previously on the matter. Your more than welcome to publish it should you deem it fit for purpose. I'm sorry to combine two issues, but i kind of feel this is relevant, how peoples rights are being whittled away in this country on the sly. And what actually trying to stand up for your rights, will nowadays entail. Usually outright hunger in varying degrees of severity.
"Dear Mr Cameron/ Mr Clegg.
I am writing this letter with regard to the current job situation as relates to job recruitment agencies.
I have no particular political allegiance and a strong distrust of politicians in general, perhaps with good reason, perhaps not.
Anyway to the point.
I feel i should mention coming from a 'laymans' perspective, the alarming amount of job vacancies that are currently offered through 'job recruitment agencies'.
Having been to a local job centre recently it is in round-about figures, 30-40% of all jobs that are offered via these organizations. (Locally at least, i'm sure there will be regional variations obviously).
These organizations are a massive burden on our society, they are a parasitic entity feeding off the very life-blood of our economy.
I believe they also have an extremely destabilizing effect on the economy as a whole.
Please allow me to explain. Please do not consider the following patronizing, it is merely my humble understanding.
Job recruitment agencies are designed to allow a corporation to be lazy, and not take the time and effort to properly recruit employees for its ranks. That is the cover story anyways.
In reality they are the king-pin in a corporate chess-game, as they will, unchecked, allow a corporation to remove all its workers from one country and relocate at their behest to a cheaper country of their choosing. Because the workers have no rights or very limited rights due to being employed by the job recruitment agency. I.e hired/fired with 1 days notice.
Now logically speaking they say the working class are the very cogs of society, they are the purchasers, they keep the economy rolling and not stagnant. O.k so when you have such a massive percentage of workers perhaps as high as 30-40% with no sort of job security whatsoever, and being paid minimum wage, via job recruitment agencies, it is as though you are trying to build on a constantly moving sand-pit. Because people don't have job security they will be more shrewd, and if you have more people being shrewd then that means they're not out there buying things to keep the economy going.
This i feel is detrimental to the nations interests, and economy.
My humble suggestion would be a job recruitment agency 'quota'. (If i had my way i would ban them completely, but i realise that corporations have become fairly powerful in the world and thus i guess it calls for diplomacy, even though they are not democratically elected, but hey ho thats another story).
Put a cap on the amount of jobs available through job recruitment agencies, perhaps 5 or 10%.
That way the old-school way of doing business can return, and those doing good business and treating their workers fairly, will prosper, those who don't will not. It will also force a measure of "corporate responsibility" in that corporations will be forced to employ their employees directly, thus giving workers more rights and maintaining a more stable/happier work-base and thus-forth economy.
I realize upon briefly reading "C181 Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997". That job recruitment agencies are directly controllable by the government.
Thankyou for taking the time to read this message, and i look forward to your correspondence on the matter, in the near future.
Regards,
Dan J*** - Concerned U.K Resident."
Anyways, i look forward to hearing from you shortly.
And hopefully we can work together, to help draw such issues to discussion.
Thanks for your time,
Warm regards,
- Dan
Name Redacted 8/10/15
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151844482781089
Hi there,
I have a story with regards to JSA/sanctions being imho unlawfully imposed.
Would this be the best e-mail address to raise such issues?
I can go into a lot more detail, however the short of it is i've been sanctioned twice this year thus far, both times there were extremely dubious/nefarious reasonings behind said sanctions. Including but not limited to..
The departmental omittance of various steps i did to look for work. The outright fabrication of jobs, i allegedly could of applied for, i.e jobs that didn't exist, or were totally unsuitable. I have material proof to this account. Granted both times after appealing, they were overturned in my favour, and i didn't think to pursue highlighting this any further. However in retrospect perhaps i should of.
Which brings us to the current time. My current claim has been sent to a "decision makers" once again. Thus resulting in a penalisation, before a judgement has been made, as regardless of outcome it would appear my only living allowance will be delayed.
This is the complete antithesis of natural law. In that one is unduly/unjustly punished before the "decision makers" even have a chance to consider a judgement on the case. This has happened to me twice in the past as aforementioned, where a "doubt" has been raised, my benefits have been sanctioned, and i have then appealed and had this overturned. This is unjust and wrongful punishment, and i would like to, if i can draw closer scrutiny to such things.
I have done what was required of me as far as i'm aware in good conscience.
I have duly resisted the calls to sign up for a UJM account, regardless of it now being apparently a mandatory condition, under data privacy (via third party operators i.e Monster inc) concerns.
I have detailed most if not all encounters with the jobcentre and have various transcripts (as far as my recollection serves me) and photocopied forms available for scrutiny upon further request.
The short of it is, (or the long of it, as it now appears if people who are doing what is required of them, are having their only living allowance suspended, or sanctioned. Then this is massively wrong.
These "sanctions" e.t.c are not just "terms" they have very real and usually very dire consequences. And if a state cannot provide the basics for its citizens in times of need, such as food/shelter and warmth, especially when those citizens are adhering to what is required of them by law, then i fear deeply for the future of this country.
Perhaps we can do something about this.
Please don't hesitate to get in touch, if you would like to call/meet thats fine. Just give me a time and a place, and providing i haven't half starved to death, and its within bicycle range (about 10 miles) of Stafford, i would be happy to meet to discuss this matter further.
As much as it pains me to say it as well, I can, if required, post a link to my Facebook page, where upon i have endeavoured to detail my encounters with the wonderful benefit system in the most elaborate/exquisite of clarity.
While your at it, perhaps you could also do an article on that which i consider one of the greatest of blights to this country. Job recruitment agencies. How 80-90% of all jobs available (this proportion has increased greatly in the past couple of years, since i drafted the letter below) are via these parasitic entities, and how the government, if it actually wanted to look after its people, (theres a novel idea) could make sure these are all regulated under the legislation "C181 Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997."
Here is a letter that i drafted, but never sent, previously on the matter. Your more than welcome to publish it should you deem it fit for purpose. I'm sorry to combine two issues, but i kind of feel this is relevant, how peoples rights are being whittled away in this country on the sly. And what actually trying to stand up for your rights, will nowadays entail. Usually outright hunger in varying degrees of severity.
"Dear Mr Cameron/ Mr Clegg.
I am writing this letter with regard to the current job situation as relates to job recruitment agencies.
I have no particular political allegiance and a strong distrust of politicians in general, perhaps with good reason, perhaps not.
Anyway to the point.
I feel i should mention coming from a 'laymans' perspective, the alarming amount of job vacancies that are currently offered through 'job recruitment agencies'.
Having been to a local job centre recently it is in round-about figures, 30-40% of all jobs that are offered via these organizations. (Locally at least, i'm sure there will be regional variations obviously).
These organizations are a massive burden on our society, they are a parasitic entity feeding off the very life-blood of our economy.
I believe they also have an extremely destabilizing effect on the economy as a whole.
Please allow me to explain. Please do not consider the following patronizing, it is merely my humble understanding.
Job recruitment agencies are designed to allow a corporation to be lazy, and not take the time and effort to properly recruit employees for its ranks. That is the cover story anyways.
In reality they are the king-pin in a corporate chess-game, as they will, unchecked, allow a corporation to remove all its workers from one country and relocate at their behest to a cheaper country of their choosing. Because the workers have no rights or very limited rights due to being employed by the job recruitment agency. I.e hired/fired with 1 days notice.
Now logically speaking they say the working class are the very cogs of society, they are the purchasers, they keep the economy rolling and not stagnant. O.k so when you have such a massive percentage of workers perhaps as high as 30-40% with no sort of job security whatsoever, and being paid minimum wage, via job recruitment agencies, it is as though you are trying to build on a constantly moving sand-pit. Because people don't have job security they will be more shrewd, and if you have more people being shrewd then that means they're not out there buying things to keep the economy going.
This i feel is detrimental to the nations interests, and economy.
My humble suggestion would be a job recruitment agency 'quota'. (If i had my way i would ban them completely, but i realise that corporations have become fairly powerful in the world and thus i guess it calls for diplomacy, even though they are not democratically elected, but hey ho thats another story).
Put a cap on the amount of jobs available through job recruitment agencies, perhaps 5 or 10%.
That way the old-school way of doing business can return, and those doing good business and treating their workers fairly, will prosper, those who don't will not. It will also force a measure of "corporate responsibility" in that corporations will be forced to employ their employees directly, thus giving workers more rights and maintaining a more stable/happier work-base and thus-forth economy.
I realize upon briefly reading "C181 Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997". That job recruitment agencies are directly controllable by the government.
Thankyou for taking the time to read this message, and i look forward to your correspondence on the matter, in the near future.
Regards,
Dan J*** - Concerned U.K Resident."
Anyways, i look forward to hearing from you shortly.
And hopefully we can work together, to help draw such issues to discussion.
Thanks for your time,
Warm regards,
- Dan
Name Redacted 8/10/15
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151844482781089
22) "Decision Makers"
2nd Dec 2013
My Benefits have been stopped unlawfully again.
Claim has been sent to a "decision makers". Thus resulting in a penalisation, before a judgement has been made, as regardless of outcome it would appear my only living allowance will be delayed.
This is the complete antithesis of natural law.
I Tried to point this out to the manager of Stafford jobcentre, but she said she was just following policy and to petition an mp. I asked is an mp going to give me a loaf of bread?
I don't have the energy to elaborate any further right now. But will do when i can.
P.s fuck money and everything it stands for. More fuel on the fire man, more fuel on the fire.
ST: As if they are at it again! Seriously....they need to pull their heads out of their own arses, and sort this shizzle out! xx
Dan Kinobi Thanks for your support S**** xx
ET: Didnt they learn not to fuck with you from the last time you outsmarted them? Eurgh the job centre are twats! x
It wasn't a matter of outsmarting E***. It was a matter of conscience. Which it is again. I've done what was required of me in good conscience.
Yet again, however i am being penalised for it. I'm thinking of going to the guardian this time actually.This shit is wrong. Haven't eaten much in the last 4 or 5 days though, so i'll do it after i've had some noodles with beans, and got some energy up.
Might get my imaginary violin out as well while i'm at it, bash out a few meloncholic classics.
ST It's definitely something that should be publicised Dan. They can't keep on getting away with it. There's only so many times that they can fob the wrong person off with this until someone stands up to them, and makes it known to the public that they are denying someone of what's rightfully theirs. Yes, granted, there are people out there who are constantly screwing the system over, and don't deserve benefits. Then there's yourself who is genuinely in need, yet being fobbed off and suffering for it. It most likely comes down to their budgets and target settings which means that the big wigs get their Xmas bonuses so they can sit an indulge in a nice xmas meal without a conscience, when poor you are scraping by with beans and noodles! Not fair, not right....hope you get ir sorted once and for all this time round Cuz! xx
Dan Kinobi Think ya might be right S****, like i say i'll maybe try and get in touch with the guardian and pass some details on. :) xx
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151843306231089
My Benefits have been stopped unlawfully again.
Claim has been sent to a "decision makers". Thus resulting in a penalisation, before a judgement has been made, as regardless of outcome it would appear my only living allowance will be delayed.
This is the complete antithesis of natural law.
I Tried to point this out to the manager of Stafford jobcentre, but she said she was just following policy and to petition an mp. I asked is an mp going to give me a loaf of bread?
I don't have the energy to elaborate any further right now. But will do when i can.
P.s fuck money and everything it stands for. More fuel on the fire man, more fuel on the fire.
ST: As if they are at it again! Seriously....they need to pull their heads out of their own arses, and sort this shizzle out! xx
Dan Kinobi Thanks for your support S**** xx
ET: Didnt they learn not to fuck with you from the last time you outsmarted them? Eurgh the job centre are twats! x
It wasn't a matter of outsmarting E***. It was a matter of conscience. Which it is again. I've done what was required of me in good conscience.
Yet again, however i am being penalised for it. I'm thinking of going to the guardian this time actually.This shit is wrong. Haven't eaten much in the last 4 or 5 days though, so i'll do it after i've had some noodles with beans, and got some energy up.
Might get my imaginary violin out as well while i'm at it, bash out a few meloncholic classics.
ST It's definitely something that should be publicised Dan. They can't keep on getting away with it. There's only so many times that they can fob the wrong person off with this until someone stands up to them, and makes it known to the public that they are denying someone of what's rightfully theirs. Yes, granted, there are people out there who are constantly screwing the system over, and don't deserve benefits. Then there's yourself who is genuinely in need, yet being fobbed off and suffering for it. It most likely comes down to their budgets and target settings which means that the big wigs get their Xmas bonuses so they can sit an indulge in a nice xmas meal without a conscience, when poor you are scraping by with beans and noodles! Not fair, not right....hope you get ir sorted once and for all this time round Cuz! xx
Dan Kinobi Think ya might be right S****, like i say i'll maybe try and get in touch with the guardian and pass some details on. :) xx
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151843306231089
21) E-mail Data protection disclaimer
6th Nov 2013
From now on every E-mail to potential employers i send will contain the following disclaimer in small print at the bottom. If you value your personal data and don't want it either sold or traded to every Tom, dick or Harry out there, i suggest you do similar.
You will notice though that the privacy statements that you are often now asked to click on, are increasingly invasive. Thus i have had to take this course of action.
Please note :-
Other than for the sole purpose of attaining employment within "Insert company name here", i do not consent to my data being used, processed or passed on to any other third parties. For remuneration, monetary or servitude.
Dan Kinobi I might suffix "without my explicit written permission" at the end, but then i guess that a) might be kinda overklill. and b) is kinda obvious.
6 November 2013 at 15:41 · Like
Dan Kinobi Please note :-
Other than for the sole purpose of attaining employment within "Insert Company Here", i do not consent to my data being used, processed or passed on to any other third parties. For remuneration, monetary or servitude, without my prior explicit written permission.
Does sound cooler to be fair. Yeah gonna use that template from now on. Sad thats its come to it, but as i say, the data trying to be gleaned from jobseekers, has now gotten to the "invasive" stage.
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151785506441089
From now on every E-mail to potential employers i send will contain the following disclaimer in small print at the bottom. If you value your personal data and don't want it either sold or traded to every Tom, dick or Harry out there, i suggest you do similar.
You will notice though that the privacy statements that you are often now asked to click on, are increasingly invasive. Thus i have had to take this course of action.
Please note :-
Other than for the sole purpose of attaining employment within "Insert company name here", i do not consent to my data being used, processed or passed on to any other third parties. For remuneration, monetary or servitude.
Dan Kinobi I might suffix "without my explicit written permission" at the end, but then i guess that a) might be kinda overklill. and b) is kinda obvious.
6 November 2013 at 15:41 · Like
Dan Kinobi Please note :-
Other than for the sole purpose of attaining employment within "Insert Company Here", i do not consent to my data being used, processed or passed on to any other third parties. For remuneration, monetary or servitude, without my prior explicit written permission.
Does sound cooler to be fair. Yeah gonna use that template from now on. Sad thats its come to it, but as i say, the data trying to be gleaned from jobseekers, has now gotten to the "invasive" stage.
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151785506441089
20) Guardian Newspaper Discussion RE: Poundland Case By Government
30th Oct 2013
Guardian - Poundland case: government defeated again over back-to-work schemes
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/30/poundland-case-government-defeated-work-schemes-duncan-smith
30 Oct 2013 14:14
In response to lizzieD
ObiDanKinobi:- Yes definitions please. Ambiguousness is open to interpretation which in turn is open to corruption. Define "civil responsibility" Surely asking someone to work for no pay/below the legal minimum wage is not civilly responsible" It is in fact encouraging a lack of "civil responsibility".
This needs to be taken further.
If the legislation that allowed that allowed this lady to work for benefits was declared illegal. Surely any retroactive legislation related to it, which is based or related to this illicit law/act needs to be reviewed (i.e the £130 million), because it is based on legally unstable foundations?
This is compulsory/forced labour and i am saddened to see that the court does not recognise this glaringly obvious fact.
30 Oct 2013 14:21
ObiDanKinobi:-
saddened is the wrong word...disgusted is a better one. Saying you must work for this corporation, if you do not your benefits will be removed from you. IS forced labour. And as far as I'm concerned there is NO excuse that would allow "working for a vested interest, for no pay, under threat of removing ability to survive" to be a lawfully imposed obligation. If that is accepted, then basically the court is actually agreeing with slavery, and the court did not seem to condemn it as such. Which is extremely worrying.
This country is rotten to the core. This is forced labour, under threat essentially of stopping ability to survive There is no grey area about it. That is the bottom line. And the fact that the court did not rule as such, shows that they have been swayed also by political means.
May true justice be done. What a joke...emergency retroactive legislation to deny people justice. What is this Nazi Germany?
30 Oct 2013 14:45
ObiDanKinobi:-
The more i think about it, the more i generally believe, the law with regard to benefits has been left intentionally ambiguous (cloudy) in order to give the ability to sanction at will. They managed to sanction me in the past under the idea "you have not taken "strong" enough steps to look for work."
This was overturned when i wrote a letter stating "how can i of not taken a strong enough step to look for work, when at no point have you clearly defined what a strong enough step to look for work actually is?"
I think this "grey area" induced by lack of clear definitions and ambiguous terminology has lead to a lot of people having their benefits stopped needlessly, and caused undue stress on behalf of the claimant.
And i think again this grey area is being manipulated, with the judge saying it is not forced labour, because it falls under the "civil responsibility" section, and that is open to interpretation, and because I'm in cahoots with the current government, that interpretation will be, yeah that its not, even though it blatantly is.
30 Oct 2013 14:47
ObiDanKinobi:-
that interpretation will be, yeah that its not <forced labour>, even though it blatantly is.
31 Oct 2013 00:39
In response to shebunkin
Here's another thought. With regard to procedure.
In a court of law a punishment is only handed out after the defendant is found guilty of his crimes.
Why then, with regard to benefits, are sanctions handed out, before the defendant has had a chance to defend their actions? This is essentially "punishment before trial", in that it must be sent to a decision makers, before a defence can be mounted.
Also you are not allowed to appeal against the decision before it is sent to a decision makers. And must appeal post-actively, this is wrong, it is allowing suffering for many people, most of whom cannot afford to have their benefits stopped even for a short period without causing further suffering/debts amassing. And a lot of whom have been sanctioned wrongly or using "grey" definitions.
Once the sanction is overturned it can be argued the individual was unduly punished. This procedure is contrary to the common law system as far as I'm aware.
You are allowed to say why you think the decision is wrong at the point of appeal i.e after they say they are sending your claim to be sanctioned, however follows an excerpt from the letter i wrote, resulting in an overturned sanction with regards to Procedure.
# Edits
dwpe = department works and pensions employee.
Kinobi = alias for my name.
Start Quote
(3) With regard to "Mr Kinobi did not want to write a statement saying why he thought he had done enough to look for work"
I stated to dwpe from Stafford Jobcentre,(I asked for her full name and position in order of accountability, she refused
stating "You can remember my face"), that until i knew what i was alleged to of done/not done, then how can i write a
statement of defence?
I said i would write a statement with regards to this after i had seen the jobs that i could allegedly of applied for.
I was told quote "I am still looking for jobs now" by dwpe.
This meaning that the decision to send my claim to be referred to a decision makers, was based on evidence that "dwpe" had
not yet found/fabricated. And that i could not refute at the time. I asked to wait until she had found these supposed jobs
and stated i would then dispute them in the written statement. I was told that i could not, because <<quote "dwpe">>"its not
the way it works". End Quote
And complying with reasonable requests is all well and good, however even people who comply with what is required of them, are liable to have their benefits stopped, as was not only my case, but i don't doubt numerous other cases across the country.
I encountered outright fabrication of jobs that i supposedly could of applied for, ommitance of "my steps taken to look for work" and have material proof to this accord.
Editted for spelling 8/10/15
Guardian - Poundland case: government defeated again over back-to-work schemes
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/30/poundland-case-government-defeated-work-schemes-duncan-smith
30 Oct 2013 14:14
In response to lizzieD
ObiDanKinobi:- Yes definitions please. Ambiguousness is open to interpretation which in turn is open to corruption. Define "civil responsibility" Surely asking someone to work for no pay/below the legal minimum wage is not civilly responsible" It is in fact encouraging a lack of "civil responsibility".
This needs to be taken further.
If the legislation that allowed that allowed this lady to work for benefits was declared illegal. Surely any retroactive legislation related to it, which is based or related to this illicit law/act needs to be reviewed (i.e the £130 million), because it is based on legally unstable foundations?
This is compulsory/forced labour and i am saddened to see that the court does not recognise this glaringly obvious fact.
30 Oct 2013 14:21
ObiDanKinobi:-
saddened is the wrong word...disgusted is a better one. Saying you must work for this corporation, if you do not your benefits will be removed from you. IS forced labour. And as far as I'm concerned there is NO excuse that would allow "working for a vested interest, for no pay, under threat of removing ability to survive" to be a lawfully imposed obligation. If that is accepted, then basically the court is actually agreeing with slavery, and the court did not seem to condemn it as such. Which is extremely worrying.
This country is rotten to the core. This is forced labour, under threat essentially of stopping ability to survive There is no grey area about it. That is the bottom line. And the fact that the court did not rule as such, shows that they have been swayed also by political means.
May true justice be done. What a joke...emergency retroactive legislation to deny people justice. What is this Nazi Germany?
30 Oct 2013 14:45
ObiDanKinobi:-
The more i think about it, the more i generally believe, the law with regard to benefits has been left intentionally ambiguous (cloudy) in order to give the ability to sanction at will. They managed to sanction me in the past under the idea "you have not taken "strong" enough steps to look for work."
This was overturned when i wrote a letter stating "how can i of not taken a strong enough step to look for work, when at no point have you clearly defined what a strong enough step to look for work actually is?"
I think this "grey area" induced by lack of clear definitions and ambiguous terminology has lead to a lot of people having their benefits stopped needlessly, and caused undue stress on behalf of the claimant.
And i think again this grey area is being manipulated, with the judge saying it is not forced labour, because it falls under the "civil responsibility" section, and that is open to interpretation, and because I'm in cahoots with the current government, that interpretation will be, yeah that its not, even though it blatantly is.
30 Oct 2013 14:47
ObiDanKinobi:-
that interpretation will be, yeah that its not <forced labour>, even though it blatantly is.
31 Oct 2013 00:39
In response to shebunkin
Here's another thought. With regard to procedure.
In a court of law a punishment is only handed out after the defendant is found guilty of his crimes.
Why then, with regard to benefits, are sanctions handed out, before the defendant has had a chance to defend their actions? This is essentially "punishment before trial", in that it must be sent to a decision makers, before a defence can be mounted.
Also you are not allowed to appeal against the decision before it is sent to a decision makers. And must appeal post-actively, this is wrong, it is allowing suffering for many people, most of whom cannot afford to have their benefits stopped even for a short period without causing further suffering/debts amassing. And a lot of whom have been sanctioned wrongly or using "grey" definitions.
Once the sanction is overturned it can be argued the individual was unduly punished. This procedure is contrary to the common law system as far as I'm aware.
You are allowed to say why you think the decision is wrong at the point of appeal i.e after they say they are sending your claim to be sanctioned, however follows an excerpt from the letter i wrote, resulting in an overturned sanction with regards to Procedure.
# Edits
dwpe = department works and pensions employee.
Kinobi = alias for my name.
Start Quote
(3) With regard to "Mr Kinobi did not want to write a statement saying why he thought he had done enough to look for work"
I stated to dwpe from Stafford Jobcentre,(I asked for her full name and position in order of accountability, she refused
stating "You can remember my face"), that until i knew what i was alleged to of done/not done, then how can i write a
statement of defence?
I said i would write a statement with regards to this after i had seen the jobs that i could allegedly of applied for.
I was told quote "I am still looking for jobs now" by dwpe.
This meaning that the decision to send my claim to be referred to a decision makers, was based on evidence that "dwpe" had
not yet found/fabricated. And that i could not refute at the time. I asked to wait until she had found these supposed jobs
and stated i would then dispute them in the written statement. I was told that i could not, because <<quote "dwpe">>"its not
the way it works". End Quote
And complying with reasonable requests is all well and good, however even people who comply with what is required of them, are liable to have their benefits stopped, as was not only my case, but i don't doubt numerous other cases across the country.
I encountered outright fabrication of jobs that i supposedly could of applied for, ommitance of "my steps taken to look for work" and have material proof to this accord.
Editted for spelling 8/10/15
19) Guardian Newspaper Discussion RE: NSA Data Harvesting
Guardian - NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders after US official handed over contacts
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls
25 Oct 2013 01:14
ObiDanKinobi:- With regard to the last paragraph of this article. I think this is related to UJM. Suggesting they get the E.U to ask permission to divulge our citizens details, via the mandated monster to the NSA, is also bullshit. The personal details of our citizens U.K are a matter of national security, and should remain fully within this nations borders. Not be prostituted to corporations.
I have refused to sign up to the UJM scheme for the following reasons...
There is a line of reasoning that suggests the patriot act, would take precedence over the data protection act, however with regard to the patriot act having judicial priority over the data protection act 1998.
I would argue the following..
The patriot act is an American law.
Therefore it does not apply to citizens residing in a foreign nation.
In my comprehension, a foreign entity (The U.S Government) amassing unrestricted access to the personal details of a foreign sovereign entities citizens (U.K Citizens), through Monster inc, is an act or terror/war. Thus i would argue that the Patriot act then does not have precedence over the data protection act and that the data protection act affords me protection from this terrorist activity that is occurring.
I do not refuse to use online methods of looking for work, I use such methods for searching for work, including but not limited to the UJM website, local newspaper and from time to time third party sites. However i have not and as far as i can will not create an online profile as i will not wilfully surrender my rights afforded me under the data protection act 1998, even if mandated by U.K law, as i believe the said law firmly contradicts, that which is laid out in the Data Protection act, and for the peripheral reasoning i have aforementioned, believe it would be unreasonable and wrong for me to comply.
The fact that this is being imposed as a mandatory condition, is in my opinion in direct conflict with the act. The fact that the company being used by the government to execute this mandation is an American one, which has been proven to be compromised by the NSA (U.S government), would mean that by rendering my information and complying with U.K law.(The creation of an online profile) I would in essence be aiding and abetting the intelligence services of a foreign sovereign state, i believe the charge for which is treason. Because of this logical dilemma i would have to say that for the benefit of the people of the U.K i will have to wilfully break the lesser of the 2 laws (not maintain an online profile), in order to do whats right. Either that or be given the opportunity to create/maintain an online profile with my respective state (the U.K government) only, and not a third party corporation.
I refer to lavabits founder Ladar Levinson quote recently to affirm this insecurity. He recently shut down his company (Specialising in encrypted e-mails) after 10 years of trading, under concerns that it was no longer secure.
"This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."
- Ladar Levinson (Lavabit founder)
Source :- The Guardian newspaper
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/lavabit-shutdown-snowden-silicon-valley
Edited for spelling 8/10/15
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls
25 Oct 2013 01:14
ObiDanKinobi:- With regard to the last paragraph of this article. I think this is related to UJM. Suggesting they get the E.U to ask permission to divulge our citizens details, via the mandated monster to the NSA, is also bullshit. The personal details of our citizens U.K are a matter of national security, and should remain fully within this nations borders. Not be prostituted to corporations.
I have refused to sign up to the UJM scheme for the following reasons...
There is a line of reasoning that suggests the patriot act, would take precedence over the data protection act, however with regard to the patriot act having judicial priority over the data protection act 1998.
I would argue the following..
The patriot act is an American law.
Therefore it does not apply to citizens residing in a foreign nation.
In my comprehension, a foreign entity (The U.S Government) amassing unrestricted access to the personal details of a foreign sovereign entities citizens (U.K Citizens), through Monster inc, is an act or terror/war. Thus i would argue that the Patriot act then does not have precedence over the data protection act and that the data protection act affords me protection from this terrorist activity that is occurring.
I do not refuse to use online methods of looking for work, I use such methods for searching for work, including but not limited to the UJM website, local newspaper and from time to time third party sites. However i have not and as far as i can will not create an online profile as i will not wilfully surrender my rights afforded me under the data protection act 1998, even if mandated by U.K law, as i believe the said law firmly contradicts, that which is laid out in the Data Protection act, and for the peripheral reasoning i have aforementioned, believe it would be unreasonable and wrong for me to comply.
The fact that this is being imposed as a mandatory condition, is in my opinion in direct conflict with the act. The fact that the company being used by the government to execute this mandation is an American one, which has been proven to be compromised by the NSA (U.S government), would mean that by rendering my information and complying with U.K law.(The creation of an online profile) I would in essence be aiding and abetting the intelligence services of a foreign sovereign state, i believe the charge for which is treason. Because of this logical dilemma i would have to say that for the benefit of the people of the U.K i will have to wilfully break the lesser of the 2 laws (not maintain an online profile), in order to do whats right. Either that or be given the opportunity to create/maintain an online profile with my respective state (the U.K government) only, and not a third party corporation.
I refer to lavabits founder Ladar Levinson quote recently to affirm this insecurity. He recently shut down his company (Specialising in encrypted e-mails) after 10 years of trading, under concerns that it was no longer secure.
"This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."
- Ladar Levinson (Lavabit founder)
Source :- The Guardian newspaper
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/lavabit-shutdown-snowden-silicon-valley
Edited for spelling 8/10/15
18) Job interview RE: Zero Hours Contract
30th September 2013
Job interview / possible work-trial @ Un-named catering company in Stafford...
Fairly accurate, though probably not entirely chronologically correct, transcript..
"Me :- I'm here about the dish-washer position..."
Chap :- "O.k"
Me:- A couple of things first though if i may...."
"I have a holiday coming up to stay @ my dads fairly soon is that going to be a problem?
Chap:- "No...that shouldn't be a problem.." (To their credit
Me :- "o.k cool"
<<Schpeel omitted>>
"One last thing....do you use zero hours contracts?"
Chap :- "Yes we do" (To their detriment)
At this point i get passed onto the manageress....
I ask manageress:- "is everyone in here (approx 10 people at least) on zero hours contracts?"
lady:- "Yes they are" (To their extreme detriment)
How long have some of these people been working here?
chap interrupts :- "ask any workers in here they all have the hours they want.."
Me:- "Thats not the point though is it? The bottom line is these workers have no rights, and that isn't right"
Me:- "I think i'm going to have to pass then i'm afraid..."
Stand up for your rights, or lose your rights.
RS likes this.
RS: The problem with zero hours is that you don't know if you'll be able to pay all your bills every month.xx
30 September at 13:50 · Like · 1
LSL Fair play to you!
30 September at 14:42 via mobile · Like
Dan Kinobi Cheers for the support. I didn't name the company, because maybe just maybe having someone who is obviously in desperate need of a job, walk in and turn down a job, as a matter of principle, might just shame them into seeing that their employees are in future, awarded at least a basic level of rights.
Have you seen the news lately as well, talk of the U.K pulling out of the human rights convention..Is this country going forwards or backwards?
30 September at 21:18 · Like
Dan Kinobi As you say zero hours contracts are detrimental to the economy of the U.K and help perpetuate the instability of the work-force of the U.K. Something i cannot in good conscience subscribe to.
30 September at 21:19 · Like
Dan Kinobi Even if it would be temporarily beneficial to my situation in the short-term to work the job, (and i was indeed fully ready and willing to work the job, had the answer to the zero-hours contract question been..no) the long-term damage done by people accepting zero-hours contracts, and allowing them to flourish, in my opinion, far outweighs that short-term gain. Something needs to be done about companies employing their entire staff on zero-hours contracts, it is disgraceful.It is irresponsible profiteering by utilizing fear to control people, a practice i despise.
Names Redacted 8/10/15
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151713927496089
Job interview / possible work-trial @ Un-named catering company in Stafford...
Fairly accurate, though probably not entirely chronologically correct, transcript..
"Me :- I'm here about the dish-washer position..."
Chap :- "O.k"
Me:- A couple of things first though if i may...."
"I have a holiday coming up to stay @ my dads fairly soon is that going to be a problem?
Chap:- "No...that shouldn't be a problem.." (To their credit
Me :- "o.k cool"
<<Schpeel omitted>>
"One last thing....do you use zero hours contracts?"
Chap :- "Yes we do" (To their detriment)
At this point i get passed onto the manageress....
I ask manageress:- "is everyone in here (approx 10 people at least) on zero hours contracts?"
lady:- "Yes they are" (To their extreme detriment)
How long have some of these people been working here?
chap interrupts :- "ask any workers in here they all have the hours they want.."
Me:- "Thats not the point though is it? The bottom line is these workers have no rights, and that isn't right"
Me:- "I think i'm going to have to pass then i'm afraid..."
Stand up for your rights, or lose your rights.
RS likes this.
RS: The problem with zero hours is that you don't know if you'll be able to pay all your bills every month.xx
30 September at 13:50 · Like · 1
LSL Fair play to you!
30 September at 14:42 via mobile · Like
Dan Kinobi Cheers for the support. I didn't name the company, because maybe just maybe having someone who is obviously in desperate need of a job, walk in and turn down a job, as a matter of principle, might just shame them into seeing that their employees are in future, awarded at least a basic level of rights.
Have you seen the news lately as well, talk of the U.K pulling out of the human rights convention..Is this country going forwards or backwards?
30 September at 21:18 · Like
Dan Kinobi As you say zero hours contracts are detrimental to the economy of the U.K and help perpetuate the instability of the work-force of the U.K. Something i cannot in good conscience subscribe to.
30 September at 21:19 · Like
Dan Kinobi Even if it would be temporarily beneficial to my situation in the short-term to work the job, (and i was indeed fully ready and willing to work the job, had the answer to the zero-hours contract question been..no) the long-term damage done by people accepting zero-hours contracts, and allowing them to flourish, in my opinion, far outweighs that short-term gain. Something needs to be done about companies employing their entire staff on zero-hours contracts, it is disgraceful.It is irresponsible profiteering by utilizing fear to control people, a practice i despise.
Names Redacted 8/10/15
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151713927496089
17) Reservations about creating a UJM online profile
August 12th 2013
Reservations about creating a UJM online profile
Although the first few paragraphs of this statement do not appear relevant to begin with, please take the time to read this letter fully, as hopefully once read in its entirety, all will become clear.
There is a line of reasoning that suggests that the 'Patriot Act', would take precedence over the 'Data Protection Act', in a court of law, however with regard to the 'Patriot Act' having judicial priority over the 'Data Protection Act 1998'.
I would argue the following..
The 'Patriot Act' is an American law.
Therefore it does not apply to citizens residing in a foreign nation.
In my comprehension, a foreign entity (The U.S Government) amassing unrestricted access to the personal details of a foreign sovereign entities citizens (U.K Citizens), through Monster inc, is an act or terror/war. Thus i would argue that the 'Patriot Act' then does not have precedence over the 'Data Protection Act' and that the 'Data Protection Act' affords me protection from this terrorist activity that is occurring.
I do not refuse to use online methods of looking for work, I use such methods for searching for work, including but not limited to the UJM website, local newspaper and from time to time third party sites. However i have not and as far as i can will not create an online profile as i will not wilfully surrender my rights afforded me under the 'Data Protection Act 1998', even if mandated by U.K law, as i believe the said law firmly contradicts, that which is laid out in the Data Protection act, and for the peripheral reasoning i have aforementioned, believe it would be unreasonable and wrong for me to comply.
The fact that this is being imposed as a mandatory condition, is in my opinion in direct conflict with the act. The fact that the company being used by the government to execute this mandation is an American one, which has been proven to be compromised by the NSA (U.S government), would mean that by rendering my information and complying with U.K law.(The creation of an online profile) I would in essence be aiding and abetting the intelligence services of a foreign sovereign state, I believe the charge for which is treason.
Because of this logical dilemma i would have to say that for the benefit of the people of the U.K I will have to wilfully break the lesser of the 2 laws (not maintain an online profile), in order to do what's right. Either that or be given the opportunity to create/maintain an online profile with my respective state (the U.K government) only, and not a third party corporation.
I refer to Lavabits founder Ladar Levinson's quote recently to affirm this insecurity. He recently shut down his company (Specialising in encrypted e-mails) after 10 years of trading, under concerns that it was no longer secure.
"This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."
- Ladar Levinson (Lavabit founder)
Source :- The Guardian newspaper
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/lavabit-shutdown-snowden-silicon-valley
Email service used by Snowden shuts itself down, warns against using US-based companies
www.theguardian.com
RS likes this.
Dan Kinobi To whomsoever it may concern,
This is official notification that a claim for judicial review and an application for an injunction has been lodged with the Administrative Court Cardiff as of 19th June 2013. (Claim no : CO/7681/2013)
Due to the matters in dispute and the injunction sought, officers, agents, servants or others of the Secretary of State may not issue a direction, amend the jobseekers agreement or make demands or impose penalties in regard to registration with Universal Jobmatch.
Non-compliance with notification may have serious legal consequences.
12 August at 14:43 · Like
Dan Kinobi :- Although the test-case above that is currently pending would appear to address"Data Protection Act" breaches,
My concerns/reasoning are/is not identical to the aforementioned case, in that there are additional considerations, that would merit, should so be required, their own distinct judicial review, in my opinion.
Signed
Dan J***
Name Redacted 8/10/15
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151623903036089
Reservations about creating a UJM online profile
Although the first few paragraphs of this statement do not appear relevant to begin with, please take the time to read this letter fully, as hopefully once read in its entirety, all will become clear.
There is a line of reasoning that suggests that the 'Patriot Act', would take precedence over the 'Data Protection Act', in a court of law, however with regard to the 'Patriot Act' having judicial priority over the 'Data Protection Act 1998'.
I would argue the following..
The 'Patriot Act' is an American law.
Therefore it does not apply to citizens residing in a foreign nation.
In my comprehension, a foreign entity (The U.S Government) amassing unrestricted access to the personal details of a foreign sovereign entities citizens (U.K Citizens), through Monster inc, is an act or terror/war. Thus i would argue that the 'Patriot Act' then does not have precedence over the 'Data Protection Act' and that the 'Data Protection Act' affords me protection from this terrorist activity that is occurring.
I do not refuse to use online methods of looking for work, I use such methods for searching for work, including but not limited to the UJM website, local newspaper and from time to time third party sites. However i have not and as far as i can will not create an online profile as i will not wilfully surrender my rights afforded me under the 'Data Protection Act 1998', even if mandated by U.K law, as i believe the said law firmly contradicts, that which is laid out in the Data Protection act, and for the peripheral reasoning i have aforementioned, believe it would be unreasonable and wrong for me to comply.
The fact that this is being imposed as a mandatory condition, is in my opinion in direct conflict with the act. The fact that the company being used by the government to execute this mandation is an American one, which has been proven to be compromised by the NSA (U.S government), would mean that by rendering my information and complying with U.K law.(The creation of an online profile) I would in essence be aiding and abetting the intelligence services of a foreign sovereign state, I believe the charge for which is treason.
Because of this logical dilemma i would have to say that for the benefit of the people of the U.K I will have to wilfully break the lesser of the 2 laws (not maintain an online profile), in order to do what's right. Either that or be given the opportunity to create/maintain an online profile with my respective state (the U.K government) only, and not a third party corporation.
I refer to Lavabits founder Ladar Levinson's quote recently to affirm this insecurity. He recently shut down his company (Specialising in encrypted e-mails) after 10 years of trading, under concerns that it was no longer secure.
"This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."
- Ladar Levinson (Lavabit founder)
Source :- The Guardian newspaper
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/lavabit-shutdown-snowden-silicon-valley
Email service used by Snowden shuts itself down, warns against using US-based companies
www.theguardian.com
RS likes this.
Dan Kinobi To whomsoever it may concern,
This is official notification that a claim for judicial review and an application for an injunction has been lodged with the Administrative Court Cardiff as of 19th June 2013. (Claim no : CO/7681/2013)
Due to the matters in dispute and the injunction sought, officers, agents, servants or others of the Secretary of State may not issue a direction, amend the jobseekers agreement or make demands or impose penalties in regard to registration with Universal Jobmatch.
Non-compliance with notification may have serious legal consequences.
12 August at 14:43 · Like
Dan Kinobi :- Although the test-case above that is currently pending would appear to address"Data Protection Act" breaches,
My concerns/reasoning are/is not identical to the aforementioned case, in that there are additional considerations, that would merit, should so be required, their own distinct judicial review, in my opinion.
Signed
Dan J***
Name Redacted 8/10/15
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151623903036089
16) Monster A.K.A UJM
July 29th 2013
I Have resisted the requests for me to sign up to a universal jobmatch account in any way shape or form. Primarily on data protection grounds.
I Have today been told, that the mandation is now enshrined in law. I asked for more details, including the specific law on the matter, however apparently the jobcentre (local to me) has been told not to divulge any further information to those who request it.
I found this extremely strange behaviour. An information black-out. I was told to check out the local library or to talk to my local mp.
I will try to do both.
I am a conscientious objector who does not wish my personal data to be distributed to third party entities, and or sold/traded or given, especially to an entity that is of a different nation to my own. I will be resisting this fully.
I do/have done what is required of me with regards to looking for work, and do not see how having a universal jobmatch account is in anyway beneficial to me (I can still find the details of the jobs on ujm by approaching the company directly e.t.c) or will in anyway further my ability to attain employment.
It is solely beneficial to the company operating this deception (monster) to absorb data on citizens of a foreign nation (monster is a u.s.a entity). I would actually be aiding the intelligence of a foreign nation if i did this. Being a u.k citizen through and through, i will not aid and abet a foreign nation.
- Dan.
KT and LSL like this.
LG :- Don't you think sometimes you take it a bit far hun? No offence intended but you spend so much time worrying about the system robbing you, that you are losing quality life and happiness...xx
29 July at 14:43 via mobile · Like · 1
Dan Kinobi :- No, i do not think i take things a bit far at all. I don't worry, the teaching i follow encourages me not to. Instead i do what i can with the means afforded to me, to either prevent/resist such things, or to draw light to such things. Because i do not believe them to be right.
Quality life and happiness in my opinion is derived from doing what i can to see that future generations will not suffer under a fascist/totalitarian regime, and no matter how seemingly small that action that may be at the time, It is a civil responsibility of us all, in my opinion.
Do you think signing up to the universal jobmatch account should be mandated? Who is to gain from this?
What reasonable benefit is giving personal details to a third party provider, based overseas in a foreign land going to have on our lives?
The NSA has been proven to have backdoor access to most American companies. It would be reasonable to assume that Monster inc have been compromised in this fashion.
I'm not particularly keen on sharing my personal information with that of a different sovereign state, be it seemingly friendly or not. Especially if the integrity and/or security of the data cannot be confirmed to me.
On such grounds i would be technically assisting a foreign entity with intelligence, i'm sure there is a law somewhere that prohibits such things?
One must ask then...
Which law then takes precedence?
That of defending national interest or that of personal interest?
29 July at 15:24 · Like
Dan Kinobi :- I have performed my jobsearch just fine until recently without having to use a ujm account. I can still send applications to those companies that are on there, i am in no way handicapped, by not having a ujm account. What is the reasoning behind it?
29 July at 15:27 · Like
Dan Kinobi :- However there has been at least one occasion where i was not able to apply for a job because i did not have a universal jobmatch account. However recently i find that you can still find the details of the company and apply to them directly, without needing a ujm account.
29 July at 15:55 · Like
Dan Kinobi *at least one occasion in the past.
29 July at 15:57 · Like
LG:- Sorry hun, that was a lot to reply on and I was on the go. Dude you make a good point and I agree with you on this case...but my concern is more with how much time and worry you invest into conspiracy theories. I'm a fan of these debates but I don't want it to ruin or absorb your life, it isn't healthy...if you believe in it take what action you can but please don't let it get to you so much...your fam and friends need you and want you to be happy
29 July at 20:47 via mobile · Like
Dan Kinobi :- Lol conspiracy theories. How i wish it was a theory. Do the research yourself if you want L***. Monster is a u.s company. It has been proven recently that the NSA has access to any data from any American company it chooses, including Microsoft, Apple e.t.c. This has been PROVEN it is not a conspiracy. This means that my data and all the data of anyone who signs up to the UJM account mandation is technically giving their personal data to the american government. Well I'm sorry but I'm not American and i value my privacy and believe that the citizens of one country should not have to render their personal information to that of a foreign entity, especially not through an apparently "legal" route. (I will be looking in depth into the legislation that has been amended to allow such happenings). This is not being unreasonable.
Appreciate the concern but If it ruins or absorbs my life then i would be very very concerned about the world/society that you and your child find/will find yourself living in. It doesn't get to me dudette. I will do what i have to do that is all.
29 July at 21:22 · Like
LG :- I was talking in general Dan, you have a point about disclosing information but mostly its harmless. nothing is without risk but we're not facing any ill treatment or threat, which is why we should be grateful and happy and treasure each moment we have, while we still have them
29 July at 21:26 · Like
Dan Kinobi :- lol that's a bit of an undermining statement isn't it l***? What other "conspiracy theories" have i come out with lately then?, please enlighten me as i must need awaking from my semi-delusional stupor for sure. And yes we should treasure good times, but we should also i think struggle to make sure those good times continue for the next generations to come.
There is currently a mass-undermining of our country going on by vested (usually American) interest. We are essentially under economic attack. The NHS is being privatised, so is royal mail, anything that can generate money for American interest is being consumed. This is bad news for the future of the next generations.
Look at the American model where private healthcare generates a massive amount for the economy, yeah sure it does...because it basically generates personal debt...People owing so much for healthcare that they have to foreclose on their homes, or end up lying destitute in the street.
You don't have to be a brain-surgeon to realise that if we follow that model, that's exactly where we'll be in this country in the not so distant future.
Edited for spelling & Names redacted 9/11/15
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151597845096089
I Have resisted the requests for me to sign up to a universal jobmatch account in any way shape or form. Primarily on data protection grounds.
I Have today been told, that the mandation is now enshrined in law. I asked for more details, including the specific law on the matter, however apparently the jobcentre (local to me) has been told not to divulge any further information to those who request it.
I found this extremely strange behaviour. An information black-out. I was told to check out the local library or to talk to my local mp.
I will try to do both.
I am a conscientious objector who does not wish my personal data to be distributed to third party entities, and or sold/traded or given, especially to an entity that is of a different nation to my own. I will be resisting this fully.
I do/have done what is required of me with regards to looking for work, and do not see how having a universal jobmatch account is in anyway beneficial to me (I can still find the details of the jobs on ujm by approaching the company directly e.t.c) or will in anyway further my ability to attain employment.
It is solely beneficial to the company operating this deception (monster) to absorb data on citizens of a foreign nation (monster is a u.s.a entity). I would actually be aiding the intelligence of a foreign nation if i did this. Being a u.k citizen through and through, i will not aid and abet a foreign nation.
- Dan.
KT and LSL like this.
LG :- Don't you think sometimes you take it a bit far hun? No offence intended but you spend so much time worrying about the system robbing you, that you are losing quality life and happiness...xx
29 July at 14:43 via mobile · Like · 1
Dan Kinobi :- No, i do not think i take things a bit far at all. I don't worry, the teaching i follow encourages me not to. Instead i do what i can with the means afforded to me, to either prevent/resist such things, or to draw light to such things. Because i do not believe them to be right.
Quality life and happiness in my opinion is derived from doing what i can to see that future generations will not suffer under a fascist/totalitarian regime, and no matter how seemingly small that action that may be at the time, It is a civil responsibility of us all, in my opinion.
Do you think signing up to the universal jobmatch account should be mandated? Who is to gain from this?
What reasonable benefit is giving personal details to a third party provider, based overseas in a foreign land going to have on our lives?
The NSA has been proven to have backdoor access to most American companies. It would be reasonable to assume that Monster inc have been compromised in this fashion.
I'm not particularly keen on sharing my personal information with that of a different sovereign state, be it seemingly friendly or not. Especially if the integrity and/or security of the data cannot be confirmed to me.
On such grounds i would be technically assisting a foreign entity with intelligence, i'm sure there is a law somewhere that prohibits such things?
One must ask then...
Which law then takes precedence?
That of defending national interest or that of personal interest?
29 July at 15:24 · Like
Dan Kinobi :- I have performed my jobsearch just fine until recently without having to use a ujm account. I can still send applications to those companies that are on there, i am in no way handicapped, by not having a ujm account. What is the reasoning behind it?
29 July at 15:27 · Like
Dan Kinobi :- However there has been at least one occasion where i was not able to apply for a job because i did not have a universal jobmatch account. However recently i find that you can still find the details of the company and apply to them directly, without needing a ujm account.
29 July at 15:55 · Like
Dan Kinobi *at least one occasion in the past.
29 July at 15:57 · Like
LG:- Sorry hun, that was a lot to reply on and I was on the go. Dude you make a good point and I agree with you on this case...but my concern is more with how much time and worry you invest into conspiracy theories. I'm a fan of these debates but I don't want it to ruin or absorb your life, it isn't healthy...if you believe in it take what action you can but please don't let it get to you so much...your fam and friends need you and want you to be happy
29 July at 20:47 via mobile · Like
Dan Kinobi :- Lol conspiracy theories. How i wish it was a theory. Do the research yourself if you want L***. Monster is a u.s company. It has been proven recently that the NSA has access to any data from any American company it chooses, including Microsoft, Apple e.t.c. This has been PROVEN it is not a conspiracy. This means that my data and all the data of anyone who signs up to the UJM account mandation is technically giving their personal data to the american government. Well I'm sorry but I'm not American and i value my privacy and believe that the citizens of one country should not have to render their personal information to that of a foreign entity, especially not through an apparently "legal" route. (I will be looking in depth into the legislation that has been amended to allow such happenings). This is not being unreasonable.
Appreciate the concern but If it ruins or absorbs my life then i would be very very concerned about the world/society that you and your child find/will find yourself living in. It doesn't get to me dudette. I will do what i have to do that is all.
29 July at 21:22 · Like
LG :- I was talking in general Dan, you have a point about disclosing information but mostly its harmless. nothing is without risk but we're not facing any ill treatment or threat, which is why we should be grateful and happy and treasure each moment we have, while we still have them
29 July at 21:26 · Like
Dan Kinobi :- lol that's a bit of an undermining statement isn't it l***? What other "conspiracy theories" have i come out with lately then?, please enlighten me as i must need awaking from my semi-delusional stupor for sure. And yes we should treasure good times, but we should also i think struggle to make sure those good times continue for the next generations to come.
There is currently a mass-undermining of our country going on by vested (usually American) interest. We are essentially under economic attack. The NHS is being privatised, so is royal mail, anything that can generate money for American interest is being consumed. This is bad news for the future of the next generations.
Look at the American model where private healthcare generates a massive amount for the economy, yeah sure it does...because it basically generates personal debt...People owing so much for healthcare that they have to foreclose on their homes, or end up lying destitute in the street.
You don't have to be a brain-surgeon to realise that if we follow that model, that's exactly where we'll be in this country in the not so distant future.
Edited for spelling & Names redacted 9/11/15
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151597845096089
15) Official Response to Decision to once again Disallow my JSA payment. (And subsequent social media discussion)
Official Response to Decision to once again Disallow my JSA payment.
In the interest of transparency i will post the details i will be attaching to my "Application for Revision of an outcome decision" and handing in on Monday...Hopefully common sense will prevail.
Is the job-seeker satisfied with the outcome decision? If no, please say which part of the decision you disagree with.
No.
All of it.
Reasons why the job-seeker disagrees with the outcome of the decision.
Steps that i have taken to look for work have once again been omitted from the Actively Seeking Employment form.
There are 3 steps that have been omitted including one job that i have applied for.
I believe the jobcentre staff dealing with this dispute have already taken a photocopy of my job-search, so this discrepancy will be on record, although i will attach a further photocopy of evidence(s) with this letter.
I believe i have in good conscience adhered to my responsibilities with regard to taking the 2 steps required by law to look for work each week.
Please see attached evidence form 1 and the relevant numberings.
With respect to the job that i applied for with regard to Pieroth according to a jobcentre staff...
(1) "I have check (sic) UJM for the vacancy in Stafford for Pieroth (where Mr Jackson said he got it from), 2118002 & the vacancy states needs own car".
Having checked that job listing again 2118002, it seems someone has since highlighted in Bold in the job description, "Needs own car". This i admit i overlooked before it was changed, if it was indeed genuinely there all along, otherwise i obviously would not of applied for the job, as i have no car.
With regard to the cyber-security challenge point...
(2) I was asked about the "cyber-security" challenge by 2 members of the jobcentre staff. I said that it was a competition and that the winner would possibly be awarded a job in the security sector. I also stated how i tried to download the necessary file, but that the download link had failed. I was completely honest about this. I did not say "i have to wait & see if i had won the competition, before a job would be offered".
I talked to two separate jobcentre staff about this, so it is possible one of them has become confused and misunderstood. I am not aware of who is making these claims against me, as i do not appear to see their name anywhere on this referral for sanction form.
(3) With regard to "Mr Jackson did not want to write a statement saying why he thought he had done enough to look for work" I stated to Liz from Stafford Jobcentre,(I asked for her full name and position in order of accountability, she refused stating "You can remember my face"), that until i knew what i was alleged to of done/not done, then how can i write a statement of defence?
I said i would write a statement with regards to this after i had seen the jobs that i could allegedly of applied for.
I was told quote "I am still looking for jobs now" by Liz. This meaning that the decision to send my claim to be referred to a decision makers, was based on evidence that Liz had not yet found/fabricated. And that i could not refute at the time. I asked to wait until she had found these supposed jobs and stated i would then dispute them in the written statement. I was told that i could not, because <<quote Liz>> "its not
the way it works".
Thus it has taken until now, with me having to undergo this appeal process, and the decision to "disallow" my claim being carried out, before i could make/mount any sort of defence. I personally find this sequence of due order, to be wrong, and
contradictory to our legal system.
In a court of law a decision/judgement is made only after the defence has had the chance to defend themselves. It could be argued that no such reasonable defence is even allowed in this circumstance. If i am not allowed to appeal
until after a decision is made, and i am not allowed to make a written statement of defence before the "referral decision" is sent to be adjudicated on. How then is this just,fair or reasonable?
(4) I was told by Liz that a benefit week runs from Tuesday to Monday I said that i did not accept this. I asked 'what happens after i leave the jobcentre now? If i apply for jobs after i leave here ((my signing date is a Monday)), then your telling me that they do not count towards my steps towards looking for employment?'.
This is ridiculous. So your supposed to limit your job-search and not apply for jobs on Monday after signing for benefits? More jobs could easily be added to both the UJM website, and also on various websites after having signed for benefits.
As far as i am concerned, a benefit week runs from Monday when you leave the jobcentre, until Monday the next week.
To say otherwise would be limiting my job-seeking unnecessarily, something i have pledged not to do, in my job-seekers agreement (jsag).
And finally...With regard to the list of jobs i could allegedly of applied for...
1841125 - does not exist.
2046327 - Requires 5+ years experience. I do not have 5+ years experience in cleaning.
2101311 - Is working for an agency. I have had extremely bad experiences with virtually every agency i have ever worked for.
Combined with my logical reasoning for not working for an agency with regard to contributing towards a lack of stability
of our nations economy. <<I will give my reasoning behind this, upon further request.>>
403124 - Requires exceptional customer service skills. I do not possess these, Combined with the fact the job is in Cannock, and that some shifts will require a later than 11pm finish, meaning most likely all trains and buses will have ceased service.
2078328 - The details for this job are not available without signing up for a universal jobmatch account. I refused to do this because i felt it would waive my rights with regard to the Data protection act 1998, and do not want my data to be sold and/or distributed to third party providers. I believe this is not unreasonable. (5)
I asked for a written assurance that my data would not be distributed to third party vendors. I was given no such assurance, and was instead told my next review with regard to jsag would be sometime in 2014, due for some reason, to being with a
work programme vendor.
However as you will see, when i post all relevant photocopies of the evidence, which i will, this was still appended to the actively seeking employment doubt, as a reasoning behind the sanction.
If part of the argument against me, is that i have not taken "strong enough steps", then i do not accept such ambiguous terminology.
Nowhere is a definition of a "strong enough step" put forward for the job-seeker to comprehend, so to use this point to try and discredit or disallow a job-seeker, is i believe wrong. I believe searching a website, applying for jobs i could reasonably do, and attending a job fair amongst other steps, to be reasonable steps.
On a final note, in good faith i can say i believe i have adhered to my responsibilities with regard to actively seeking employment. This is the second time in about as many months now that i have had a "decision be sent to a decision makers",
which has put me into unreasonable financial difficulties.
If i had done something wrong i might understand this sanction. However i have not, and would much rather be spending my time searching for jobs, than writing these letters, basically having to fight for the ability to exist.
Please could you send me a signed/dated letter of what is required of a job-seeker, with regard to the law. I believe you have my details/address on record.
Thank you for your time,
Warm Regards,
Dan J
RS and ET like this.
ET:- You tell them Danny!! Hopefully those assholes will stop giving you a hard time after this, its a good thing you know your rights! Xx
14 June at 17:19 · Like
KT :- Well said! xx
14 June at 17:23 via mobile · Like
Dan Kinobi :- Cheers. I'm just about to attach a copy of the final piece of evidence, my jsag. Just need to edit out my NI number first....
14 June at 17:26 · Like · 2
Dan Kinobi The reason i know its 2 steps is because i got sent a letter that i asked for when the last decision was reversed, that states as much. However i've misplaced it, so i'm requesting another one.
I'm posting my jsag although i know its a general statement and not one necessarily backed up by law... (As it actually states on the jsag).
14 June at 17:28 · Like · 2
Dan Kinobi :- Still heard nothing on this, handed it in a week ago.(17/06/13) Got a phoned receipt call last wednesday, (19/06/13) to say it had arrived. Nothing since then.
24 June at 15:12 · Like
Dan Kinobi :- **Update** Decision was overturned 21/06/13 according to received letter and back dated amount paid on 25/06/13.
Housing benefit was also automatically stopped, for the 4-week period, so this still needs to restart and be back-dated.
If it wasn't for a short-term loan, this could/would of put me into serious difficulties.
If this is a common policy then i suggest the council/government reconsider this strategy as it will put many people into severe difficulties, and in many cases may justify crime.
If people are being sanctioned when they are doing what is required of them, and their only living allowance/stopped/suspended, this is extremely unhealthy for our society i believe.
If anyone knows of anyone experiencing any difficulties with the jobcentre please send them to this thread....maybe it can be of some use to them...cheers....
Dan Kinobi:-
Copy of steps taken to look for work...bottom 5 steps on this photocopy, and more on the next page....Notice how the total number of steps documented by me in this log exceeds, the number that the employee stated on "other side of ASE" form.
I.e steps i took to look for work, were omitted, in order to present a more easily sanctionable "Decision making process".
This same occurrence happened with the last "Decision Making" process i went through. (Which was repealed on appeal).
The staff member at the time said they took a photocopy of the log as evidence, as they did this time. Therefore why were the other steps omitted, surely that will show they have proven to of omitted evidence from the consideration?
Notice the signature after the jobsearch, this is evidence that they did indeed receive/check the job log fully.
Edited for spelling & Names Redacted:- 8/10/15
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151517502271089
Copy of steps taken to look for work...bottom 5 steps on this photocopy, and more on the next page....Notice how the total number of steps documented by me in this log exceeds, the number that the employee stated on "otherside of ASE" form.
(EV1, EV2, EV3)
I.e steps i took to look for work, were omitted, in order to present a more easily sanctionable "Decision making process".
This same occurrence happened with the last "Decision Making" process i went through. (Which was repealed on appeal).
The staff member at the time said they took a photocopy of the log as evidence, as they did this time. Therefore why were the other steps omitted, surely that will show they have proven to of omitted evidence from the consideration?
Notice the signature after the jobsearch, this is evidence that they did indeed receive/check the job log fully.
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151517523401089
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)