18th Feb 2014
Guardian - Welfare state presides over 'culture of fear', charities say
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/18/welfare-state-jobs-inquiry-culture-fear#comments
18 Feb 2014 22:21
ObiDanKinobi:-
I've been "disallowed" 5 times now in the space of a year. I just sent an appeal to a tribunal hearing today, whilst hearing from the local jobcentre that my claim has been disallowed once again.
I have not signed up to a universal jobmatch account and will not do, due to it being hosted by monster, an American corporation, none of which are free from nsa surveillance. Thus i reasoned that by singing up to monster, i would in fact by proxy, be handing over my personal details to a foreign nation state, a potentially treasonous offence, and would urge others, not to do similar.
I also refuse to utilise job recruitment agencies, as i believe 80-90% of all jobs are via them, and believe if i did so, that this could and would increase to 100%. Which is a stealth job/rights tax.
I have quoted the law with regard to Jobseekers Regulations 1996 No 207, Reg 18 amendment 2004 1) which clearly states that a claimant should take more than 2 steps per week to look for work, with 3 steps logically satisfying this condition.
On my next encounter i will be taking a copy of this legislation, and reading it aloud to whoever i deal with, as i have abided by this condition and have still been sent for disallowance.
I believe taking the number of steps that are desired by law, in this case 3, to be reasonable, if it were not reasonable, then the law on the matter should not read as such. Also where the interpretation of "reasonable" is being used to blanket sanction many jobseekers across the country as i expect it is, i suggest that the number and nature of the steps are clearly defined in the above legislation, and that any other laws that use such ambiguous terminology as "reasonable steps" or "best-chance" should be deemed only useful in the nature of merciful circumstances (i.e when the 3 steps as stated by jobseekers regulations 1996 no 207 18 1 & 2) cannot be performed because of a disability of sorts.
18 Feb 2014 22:49
ObiDanKinobi In response to Maggie Ernest
I wish that abiding by the law was a reasonable "excuse", at the moment apparently its not. Thus these are unlawful sanctions, being metered out by someone who is very spuriously/dodgily interpreting "reasonable steps" and "best-chance" to their advantage. However numbers are not ambiguous they are exact. And it states in law that a person who has taken more than 2 steps per week to look for work, is doing what is required of them. To do what is required of one, is reasonable, therefore anyone who has been sanctioned, whilst taking 3 steps or more, has been sanctioned, in my opinion, unlawfully.
18 Feb 2014 23:09
ObiDanKinobi
Its worth mentioning that i often surpass the 3 steps as desired by law in the regulations, as i obviously am indeed looking to attain employment.
I've been looking for work where i can and have a good conscience about it, which is why i am and if necessary will kick up such a shit-storm about this.
I have approached the guardian in the past with proof that the jobcentre local to me has been omitting steps on the ASE form (internal form that jobcentre+ then send to a decision makers) to present a more "sanctionable" decision to the "decision-makers" (who are but another arm of government, how convenient). I have material proof of this.
I have not had a response from the guardian yet.
Basically steps that i had taken to look for employment were left off (intentionally or not, i do not know, truth be told) the ASE form. I have a signed copy of my jobsearch (by the DWP employee at the time) where I state the steps taken by me. Not all these steps were transcribed to the ASE form.
18 Feb 2014 23:12
In response to Maggie Ernest
Lol legal technicalities. Hello dwp/government employee.
18 Feb 2014 23:20
ObiDanKinobi In response to Maggie Ernest
O.k Maggie. Lets engage. So whats happened with the NHS database lately? Oh yeah private interests/business are trying to attain everyones personal information, by requiring people opt-out. It's a data-heist.
What we are seeing is the American government trying to assimilate as much information as it can, about citizens of various countries, and trying to do it through mandation or other methods (i.e trying to force people to sign up to UJM, through threat of sanction. This is not paranoia, this is fact. Thanks to the Snowden disclosures we know this to be the truth.
You can think what the fuck you want about me being for real or not, I'm not going to wilfully render my personal information to a foreign nation, however if you want to go on and do that, that's your call.
19 Feb 2014 01:25
ObiDanKinobi In response to captainbeefheart
I was sanctioned fairly recently, however i managed to acquire the ASE form that they use behind the scenes to send a decision to the much fabled "decision makers". They had omitted steps i had written in my jobsearch, and had falsified job ref no's (i.e had written job reference numbers, which i then checked, and turns out didn't actually exist), in order i can only suspect, to present a more easily sanctionable case to the "decision-makers" who are yes that's right another branch of government, because that's always going to be a fair, unbiased decision isn't it?
Anyways as i say I've sent an appeal to the tribunal, and will hopefully update as and when i get a hearing, for better or for worse.
Edited for spelling 13/10/15
No comments:
Post a Comment