Not that you'll be interested, but...

Not that you'll be interested, but...

Yesterday the British government took the unprecedented step of effectively declaring that it is above the law.

A few weeks ago the Department of Work and Pensions was judged, according to the Court of Appeal, to have illegally sanctioned unemployed people who had been forced to work for free.

Being forced to work for free – with the taxpayer picking up the bill for a measly £71 a week Jobseekers Allowance – is known as workfare. Those driven on to workfare had not been given properly informed about the schemes and – by violating the law - the Government was due to cough up an average of £550 to 231,000 illegally punished people.

So far so good...

But...what was the Tory response? Not only to change the law, but to do so retrospectively. No laws were now broken, because those laws have been changed in hindsight. Retrospective lawmaking - the implications are astounding.

This rule change was pushed through last night because the Labour party ordered its MPs to abstain - although a number, to their credit, voted against it - allowing this travesty to go through.

Why should anyone obey a law any more, since Parliament can now apparently retrospectivly change it at whim. Something you did perfectly legally today might this time next week be illeagal, and if they make it retrospective to yesterday - you've broken the law, even though you hadn't at the time. The lunatics have finally gained full control of the asylum.

You may wonder why you didn't hear anything about this on the news today. Because there appears to have been a news blackout is why. Only a few blogs reported it, and, to his credit, Owen Jones at The Independent newspaper.

His article is here - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...able-attack-on-vulnerable-people-8542193.html

 

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting.

 

Thanks for drawing my attention to that.

Truly appalling... but this is only the beginning

 

Thanks for this. I've already sent my Labour MP a message about this (nothing bad, but the urge to end with "you bunch of fucking spineless weasels" was immense)

 

It gets worse..

The government has launched an inquiry after it was forced to admit that jobcentres have been setting targets and league tables to sanction benefit claimants - cut them off from any benefits - despite assurances to parliament this week that no such targets were being set.

A leaked email shows staff being warned by managers that they will be disciplined unless they increase the number of claimants referred to a tougher benefit regime.

I dont think this will come as much suprise to anyone signing on... its about the only way they can "reduce" unemployment.

In the email Ruth King, a jobcentre adviser manager at Walthamstow, sets out ways jobcentre staff can catch out claimants, saying: "You should consider every doubt – if you are unsure then please conference with me."

Her advice includes: "Do not accept the same job search every week, do not accept 'I dropped off CV to shops like Asda or Sainsbury's', listen for telltale phrases 'I pick up the kids', 'I look after my neighbours children/my grandchildren' or just 'I am busy' – all of which suggest that the customer may not be fully available for work, even cases where a parent shares custody can be considered."

She says someone can be deemed not to be actively seeking employment, and therefore subject to sanction "if someone is going away from home, but is not willing to return to take up employment, not willing to leave details of how they can be contacted should a job become available or not looking for work whilst away".

King says in her email: "Our district manager is not pleased … because senior managers are under pressure to improve our office output and move up the league he has to apply some pressure downwards."

She continues: "Guys, we really need to up the game here. The 5% target is one thing – the fact that we are seeing over 300 people a week and only submitting six of them for possible doubts is simply not quite credible."

But perhaps the other 294 were fully complying with the DWP demands ? That possibility doesn't even seem to be considered.

Full story - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/21/jobcentre-set-targets-benefit-sanctions

For up-to-date news on the almost daily chipping away at civil liberties by our elected representives I'd recommend subscribing to the The Void - http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/