90) Guardian Newspaper Discussion - Benefits System Inflicting Suffering

10th March 2015

Guardian - Inflicting suffering on those in need is now at the heart of our benefits system
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/10/inflicting-suffering-heart-benefits-system-unemployed-disabled#comments

10 Mar 2015 20:54

I tried to raise my personal circumstances regarding jsa with the guardian about a year ago, regarding unlawful sanctioning. Unfortunately i have yet to hear back from them.

Since then all sanctions have been overturned, (around 7 total) a judge has unequivocally found in my favour, at a tribunal that i personally attended, ruling that what is desired of a jobseeker is 3 steps per week, (meaning many people have been unlawfully sanctioned by members of jobcentre staff) and yet the DWP is refusing to release monies that are due to me.

I suggest that everyone out there facing such things prints out section 18 of the jobseekers regulations 1996. Where it clearly states that a jobseeker IS satisfying their ASE employment conditions if they are taking more than 2 steps per week to look for employment.

Before attempting to read this legislature to Sean Harris at Stafford Jobcentre, I asked him if he knew the relevant legislation, relating to his position, and that he was breaking the law by attempting to sanction people, who were indeed satisfying this criteria.

He replied "i do not need to know the law".

Note* I suspect this is government policy to keep civil servants in the dark with regard to the law, thus they can claim plausible deniability, and that they "believed" they weren't doing anything wrong.

As soon as i attempted to read the relevant legislation to Sean, in order to inform him of his error, he responded by calling over security, and attempting to threaten to evict me from the premises. I left of my own volition.

At a later encounter i was told by Sean Harris that a permanent suspension was placed upon my jobseekers claim, for "failure to sign a proposed variation of a jobseekers agreement".

What happened was that a proposed variation was put forward, which involved signing up to universal jobmatch, something i refuse(d) to do because it would involve the forced rendering of my personal details to a foreign nation state (U.S) via the proxy of monster.com.

Along with this were various other unreasonable terms that exceeded the lawful requirements of jobseekers regulations 1996 18.

The law deems it reasonable that more than 2 steps per week are what is desired of a jobseeker. I was not about to sign up to unreasonable terms that put a burden above and beyond what is desired of me according to the law. To do so would be putting an unlawful and unreasonable requirement upon myself, something that given my previous fully documented encounters with the outright corruption at my local jobcentre, would simply create more reasons/excuses for them to stop my claim, and would not be beneficial to me whatsoever.

I find it reasonable to meet the requirements desired of me according to the law. And that is exactly what the jobseekers agreement should require of me.

I was told by Sean at this point, that i no longer had a valid jobseekers agreement in place. I then stated that i do indeed have a jobseekers agreement in place (which i do), and that a "proposed variation", intrinsically implies that an entity already exists.

So anyways my access to social security ENTITLEMENT was then stopped, entirely. According to Sean Harris, from this point I was also not entitled to hardship allowance. This was in approximately February 2014.

I received no jsa from this point, however i continued to sign for benefits, as i believed and still do believe that i had met my responsibilities with regards to looking for work, regardless of this "permanent suspension" that was extremely dubiously applied to my claim.

Having continued to sign for a number of months, and after a period of bank holidays, (excused signings) i turned up to sign as usual, when to my total surprise i was informed that my claim had been stopped for "failure to attend an appointment".

An appointment for which i had no prior notice of whatsoever. This is complete corruption.

To this date i still have received no official notification of the cessation of my jsa claim, and suspect that it was executed in order to "force me" off my entitlement to social security benefits, in order to sign up to a new claim, which they hoped would have more binding implications. I.e universal jobmatch e.t.c.

I did make an attempt to "make" a new claim, but again the conditions that were attached to this were unreasonable and exceeded that desired of me according to the law.

This was in may 2014.

Since then i have appealed the various sanctions that were applied to my claim, of which all ASE sanctions were rightfully overturned, and have attempted to have these dubious suspensions and termination of my claim overturned. Which is exactly what i believed to of happened.

I have full documentation to this extent, and my attempts to get the unlawful suspension/termination overturned. On which as far i am aware there have been adjudications, and that they were "Favourable" to me.

tbc..

ObiDanKinobi:-

Recently in a correspondence with the DWP I was told that these instances were not yet addressed, and that basically although the judge found in my favour (after a 14 month process that is, lol justice>?). That they would not release the monies due to me.

As you can imagine after fighting 14 months for justice and getting a letter like that, one might be somewhat disheartened. However i am so absolutely determined to hold these people to account, that i shall continue the fight.

I need a place to upload the entire shebang, i have about 100 pages of documentation/narrative, And will try to find a small piece of the interwebs in order to do so.
I will try to contact the guardian via other channels, and get some media coverage, although these days there seem to be few outlets that remain unbiased/impartial.

I have not had any sort of living allowance from the state since approximately may 2014. (although i did receive a small amount of arrears that i was due from a previous sanction that was overturned in my favour RE 2013 in approx June 2014).

So from June 2014. I have had NO access whatsoever to any entitlement from the state.

This has involved periods of mild starvation, borrowing of money, and selling off, of the few possessions that i have.

This is not conducive behaviour of an alleged 1st world country, to see their citizens starving, and represents a deep and growing divide/disconnect between those in positions of relative responsibility and those who they supposedly serve.

Anyways guardian if you are interested then get in touch, and I'd be happy to share my encounters in order to expose the corruption/stasi tactics that i have witnessed.

Cheers

- dan

In response to irreverentnurse

Thanks irreverent, appreciate the support ;)

In response to Duchemin

I do not need to justify myself to you. Troll on mate.

In response to Duchemin

It may be a simple enough question. It doesn't mean i have to answer it. Your attitude is apparent as you obviously don't deal in "reason", so to try to extend any such ideas to you would apparently be an exercise in futility.

So now, Lets play this out logically..

What have you got to hide?

What is your current tax-arrangement?
What is your current bank account status?
What is your bank account number?

Now,

What makes you think you can request such things of another human-being?
Justify your existence.

I'm waiting.

In response to jimpson

Hi jim, just to pull you up on something.

Benefits sanctions are NOT within the law, when the citizen has been sanctioned, but they have taken at least 3 steps per week to look for work. - "Jobseekers Regulations 18(1)"

Such sanctions have been carried out ultra-vires, and go above and beyond the mandate of the law, thus they are illegal and unlawful.

It is worth noting this because those people who have satisfied this criteria, have been abiding by the law and are being punished unduly for it.

This will be important when crimes against humanity are put forwards against both the department, and its employees in the not so distant future, which i trust will happen.

The nuremburg defense will again not be a defence in this situation.

There WILL be justice. Mark my words.

In response to Duchemin

Go on then whats your bank account details?, how much money have you got in there?, what other assets do you have? Who do you work for? What is their tax-arrangements?

What have you got to hide?

Justify your existence, and i will justify mine.

In response to Duchemin

I am justified by doing what is required of me and fulfilling my responsibilities according to the law that was put in place with regard to such things. I have a clean conscience.

If you read this in the aforementioned statement, you would understand that i have been found to be doing what is desired of me by a judge.

Now you justify your existence!

In response to Duchemin

I imagine there is a high probability given your vile questioning attitude that you work for the department of work and pensions in some capacity or another.

Are you justified in what you do?

In response to Duchemin

I never said you were. I said justify your existence.

Everyone will need to justify themselves buddy. None of us will go without judgement.
So best get some practice in eh?

Now justify your existence.

Is your job something that benefits society? Is it something that helps other people? Do you pay your employees a fair wage for the work they do, or are they topped up or subsidised by the state?

Is your idea of justice to suggest someone is guilty and that they must then prove their innocence? By your words it would seem so. As the current benefit system encourages. Prejudicial punishment? Does this not tell you that the very nature of this is wrong? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Do you believe you are above the law?

If so you are not a just person. And i suggest that you take time to reflect upon your attitude and to adjust it appropriately.

In response to nivens

What better motivation for jobseeker employees than to realise they could be on the other side of the desk, facing similar unjust proceedings. They do have a choice though. Even though its a grim one.

Edited for spelling 3/11/15