41) Benefits Stopped Again:- Unlawfully

10th Feb 2014

Benefits stopped again. Unlawfully.

Claim suspended, and i am therefore penalised, before i have a chance to appeal or launch any sort of defence. This is completely contrary to the natural law system. It also contravenes ECHR article 2 - a right to life and article 6 - a right to a fair trial. I informed the chap i would possibly try to bring civil action against him, but he would not give me his name. No accountability.

ECHR article 2) Right to life

1Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a)in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b)in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c)in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Being that sadly, and generally speaking, you need money in this society, in order to live/survive/exist. I consider the above unlawful sanctioning a breach of this fundamental human-right

Article 6) Right to a fair trial

1In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a)to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b)to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c)to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d)to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e)to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Given the fact that punishment is enacted, before one has a chance to defend themselves (disallowance = cessation of JSA, meaning you then have to appeal afterwards) i consider this to be a breach of article 6 of the ECHR - the right to a fair trial.

I will be printing these pages out along with the jobseekers regulations 18) 1) and 2) that explicitly define the number of steps required by a jobseeker, and what acceptable steps are. And taking them along to the next jobseekers interview. As today i overheard the interviewer next to me talking to another client, stating "there isn't any minimum number of steps, you need to take", i did not mention anything at the time, however if this is the general line, they are trying to use in order to sanction at will, then it needs to be addressed, most urgently.

If in law there is an explicit definition of what is considered reasonable for actively seeking employment, (Jobseekers regulations 1996 18) sections 1 and 2) then i consider the other arguments of "what is reasonable" to be peripheral points of law, in that, specific cases might mitigate a more merciful response, for example considering illness/disability e.t..c.

However if this "reasonable steps" expression is being used as a tool for blanket sanctions, which i suspect it is, then perhaps it would be right and fair to inform all jobseekers of their obligations with regard to the law. If indeed their are multiple laws relating to this, not only does this lead to a paradox of sorts, but i also suggest the laws have been cherry-picked/ambiguously interpreted to suit the agenda of the current government.

However as i said before there is a fairly clear definition of reasonable steps in jobseekers regulation 1996 18) 1 and 2) (amended 2004) that says that more than 2 steps are required (or less where necessary).

As i will scan and upload evidence once more, as you will see, i have surpassed the required number of steps, yet again.

EV 6

Therefore i consider my claim to a living allowance (JSA) to be once again unlawfully suspended.

Page 44 of the following link <<jobseekers regulations 1996 reg 18>> Department of Works and Pensions own website.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a11-4001.pdf

Or a Link to the Relevant Page On This Blog. *Edit 11/11/15

EV 7

Edited for spelling 13/10/15

Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10151975472846089