9th June 2014
Here
is the return correspondence from the DWP (Decision Makers)to say that
the periods in question have been overturned and awarded in my
"apparent" favour. As you can see it clearly states that I should be
allowed(and thus entitled) to the periods that were previously
disallowed. At least that's what any reasonable person might think? EV4 And so I receive the following correspondence from the courts and tribunals service to say....
Tribunal response:- Basically the latter case will be closed. EV 5
However the decision is indeed wrong.
I
did receive a small payment for a 1 week period (£71.70) in the first
dispute (still pending £129.70) Apparently this is because there is
still a period of dispute during this time frame, with which there is
still
(thankfully) a case pending for. I shall be attending this hearing in
July. And shall, all being well, suffix all these latter communications,
and have them admitted as evidence.
Aside from that there is a longer period from 11th Feb - 28th April.
For this period i received £225.35.
As
you can probably tell this is a lot less than the amount i was entitled
to for that period. In fact the amount i should of received had this
truly been "allowed" was £778.45. Thus a shortfall for this period of
£553.10.
Wondering why this shortfall existed i called up and spoke to a jobcentre employee.
She
said that because my claim was suspended on a certain date (for refusal
to sign a proposed variation, which we shall come back to shortly) that
i was not entitled to any JSA during these periods.
I
have received no letters or official notification about this
"suspension" whatsoever, I have as you can see from my earlier posts on
this topic, (Appeal letter) made mention of this "phantom sanction" in
my appeal to the tribunals service, whereby i ask them to consider such
things.
However whether the tribunals service are complicit in such things, will remain to be seen. They hopefully are not.
However they also received a copy of the aforementioned "apparent sanction overturn/allowance notification letter from the DWP.
So as far they were concerned they probably deemed the case to be closed, as the DWP had acknowledge "error" so to speak.
However
they have not released the funds which I am entitled to, so effectively
they have "fobbed-off" the courts, via the illusion that the case is
closed.
Resulting
in me having to open another case and a further 6-12 month wait. Thus
why i will try to use the earlier "open/pending case" to see these
further happenings brought to light.
Before
now i would of said perhaps there were coincidences that were resulting
in these courses of action/mistakes being made, by the DWP. But now
given the number of happenings and tactical placement of these "errors".
I suggest this is not "accidental" but instead a carefully constructed
and almost stasi like campaign.
I
have documented and have proof of all these convenient "errors" and
will endeavour to compile them into a report of sorts. Which
perhaps/hopefully can then be publicised further, to bring much needed
light to the matter.
The
2 happenings that seemed extremely dubious to me, the sudden stoppage
of my JSA claim for a made up-charge of "failing to attend an
interview" and the claim suspension for refusal to sign a proposed
variation of a jsag, I have received no official communications on
whatsoever.
I
would deem such things, i.e trying to force someone to sign a jsag
which incorporates new binding laws/legality, (i suspect by closing my
claim they were trying to force me to sign a new claimant commitment,
which will have new more punitive legislature that supersedes the old).
And secondly trying to mandate someone to use universal credit and then
illegally suspending their claim when they do not, as political
manoeuvres and political oppression.
I
have given my reasons for not signing up to universal jobmatch as
follows. This is, I suspect the reason they "suspended" my claim.
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/.../lavabit-shutdown-snowden...
Email service used by Snowden shuts itself down, warns against using US-based companies
www.theguardian.com
Original Source:- https://www.facebook.com/J3D15/posts/10152205660011089
No comments:
Post a Comment