37) The "Crown" Excuse

28th Jan 2014

*Editors note 13/10/15* I cannot find the original source on Facebook for this experience, which is very strange. It is possible i labelled the date incorrectly, however this is unlikely, given the fact that similar posts i made around this date, refer to the same content. The content being the fact that the DWP office is allegedly a "crown" premises. I.e private property.  This excuse being used as a means to discourage/prevent me from filming and attempting to attain some accountability. *

O.k so I had an appointment today at the local jobcentre. Please excuse the somewhat over zealous use of parenthesis, they should generally be seen as sub points, (*editors notes if you will ;). However I'm not quite sure how to format this in a better way, just yet.

Firstly, the adviser and I talked about filming or potentially recording any future interviews. He mentioned how the building was "crown property". Which meant it was a private building. He went on to say that the jobcentre (DWP) would allow the filming of interviews, and that a private room would be provided for this, should it be required. For personal records only though, and that should it be published, i would be subject to prosecution. I mentioned that i was not filming/recording at the time (i did try to look for a memory card, but haven't got the means of recording any encounters at the moment), but that i would be recording the encounter in a written fashion. He seemingly accepted this.

He mentioned that the reason why people cannot film in the general area is because it violates other customers protection under the data protection act. I mentioned this could be used as a blanket excuse to oppose methods of accountability. (*Eds note - while it may be true that sporadic details could technically be picked up by the camera/recording device, if the information is non-identifiable, or could be edited from the recording, then it is in my opinion, not a valid reason as to not hold governmental officials to account.)

    At this point i notified the chap, that such undercover evidence is usually admissible in a court of law, (*usually via a preliminary hearing to ascertain judicial viability I'm thinking) as far as i am aware, if it brings to light evidence of corruption.
(*editors note) In a similar way as when people film police officers e.t.c undercover, and it brings to light a crime or corruption it is then usually considered applicable and/or relevant. I.e admissible.

I mentioned that there is a whole lot of accountability required from the customers of the jobcentre, and yet not a lot is required from the governmental employees.

I mentioned the fact that security cameras are prevalent all over the facility, without any consent asked from the customers (i.e me or you).

   Back to the status of the building and apparently the government are renting it from the "crown estate" which means it is apparently a "private building". I said that if it was a rented building from whoever, it is still surely technically a governmental building and therefore a public building. Again (*see note below) seeming parallels were made here with the MOD (Ministry Of Defence), and who knows what this is insinuating. (*Perhaps that not all governmental buildings are "public" i guess. However when it comes to something like "social security" one would reasonably expect to be dealt with in a "public place").

(*In the past when the MOD was mentioned (seemingly as a comparison of the status of the jobcentre building) i asked if the jobcentre was indeed a military installation, for which i was accused of "putting spin" on the conversation).

At this point, the adviser tried to change the topic of discussion to the official matters, (I.e the documented reason i was there) stating this was not relevant. I stated that i believed it was indeed relevant.

It is worth noting in order of accountability, That the order of events here may not be entirely chronologically correct, however the content of the conversation e.t.c, is, whilst not an exact transcript, fairly accurate. 

 Handed in reasoning why mandatory signing up to universal jobmatch is i believe unreasonable.

Edited for spelling 13/10/15