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
No comments:
Post a Comment