KUWG extend anti-property market greed protest to Genesis HA Willesden offices, Wed 2 Sept, 4pm-5pm

Text by CJ. Placard designs by Dude Swheatie

Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group extends its protests against Genesis Housing Association's CEO (Neil Hadden) proposal to just build private units for sale rather than building 'social' housing with low rents. 

Genesis Housing Assn screws the public purse and us

Two weeks ago we picketed Genesis HA Camden;(1) next we picket Genesis HA Willesden offices on Wednesday 2 September, 4pm-5pm, as agreed at KUWG business meeting held on Thursday 27 August.

Osborne's pals sponge off public coffers: First they creamed off housing benefit; then they bought more land at a 'fire sale'

(If it ain't 'social' it must be ANTI-social)...SIMPLES!

The protest will be at :

Utopia House

192-196 High Road

Willesden

London

NW10 2PB 

Location map

Wednesday 2nd September 4pm-5pm.

Market's greed casts out vulnerable

'Social Landlord'? What a fraud!

The first protest was at their Camden Head office, so we feel a bit of outreach to Brent workers and citizens would show we like to inform all concerned and let the small fry know what the big fry are up to.

Me (CJ), Pam, Alan3, Elizabeth2, Ivy and Giselle going with Michael and Ellen as maybes. (All others welcome, even if only to see Ivy's "GULP AND SHIT" poster!)

Below is a link to a letter in this week's Camden New Journal by Comrade Peter Rutherford who is a persistent thorn in Genesis' backside

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/letters/2015/aug/housing-association-chiefs-should-resign

(3)

How many eviction suicides already?

Would be good to have union representation at the protest, as sure the workers signed up to be in social roles not real estate agents for the rich! STOP SOCIAL CLEANSING BY WASHING HADDEN'S CRAPPY IDEAS AWAY!!

Anyone else you know should be informed? Could sum1 put this be on facebook?

Hadden puts Satan in charge of Eden?

Homes for life! Not pauper caskets!

Give us homes, give us hope!

CJ

Notes
(1) http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/aug/07/housing-asssociation-no-longer-build-homes-poor-genesis
(2) http://www.camdennewjournal.com/genesispicket
(3) http://www.camdennewjournal.com/letters/2015/aug/housing-association-chiefs-should-resign

Is it not high time that Welfare Reform Minister David Freud was punished for gross negligence?

By Dude Swheatie of Kwug

Referring to the 'fake quotes' on Department for Work & Pensions sanctions promotion literature, Work & Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has said that those quotes were meant to be anonymised from genuine cases and that the staff involved in the misquoting will be disciplined.(1)

But if this alleged improper interpretation of Government orders is true, and it be any more heinous a crime than the DWP's negligence that has arguably led to a great many claimant deaths?(3) Maybe a real issue here is that when those most responsible for the policies and practices that prove publicly unacceptable when revealed are found out, they shift the blame to those who follow their orders on the grounds that those orders were [allegedly] not carried out properly?

And what of the architects of many of the nasty changes that have really screwed disability benefit claimants? I am referring most specifically here to

1. investment banker turned Tony Blair's 'welfare reform guru' turned Tory Welfare Reform Minister David Freud and
2. dodgy American health insurance company Unum that has been 'advising' successive UK governments on 'welfare reform'/privatisation of the welfare state since at least the mid-1990's.

Some of my charges against those are outlined by way of my blog comments on Kate Belgrave's blog piece If government is so obseessed with "helping" disabled people, why did it close the Independent Living Fund?(4)

Notes

(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34038928
(2) Eg, http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/?s=esa+claimant+deaths
(3) http://www.katebelgrave.com/2015/08/if-government-is-so-obsessed-with-helping-disabled-people-why-did-it-close-the-independent-living-fund/

Responding to CNJ story of eviction of couple in £9K rent arrears

Members of Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group were saddened to read of the fuel-impoverishment driven eviction of Geoffrey and Carol Tracey from their Camden Council home in Swiss Cottage (CNJ, Thursday 20 August,p11).(1) Yet we would argue that a major part of the problem has been the “better off on housing benefit than work” rationale parroted by Carol. That rationale has been heavily promoted by those most responsible for the increasing divide between the wealthy and poorer members of society, and operates to weaken cooperative links between and within economically vulnerable sectors of society.

People on state benefits generally don't live lives of luxury and idleness, however much government ministers and right wing tabloid newspapers would have others believe. Amid a high-profile taxpayer-funded 'targeting benefit cheats' media campaign, a 2006 report by Joseph Rowntree Foundation pointed out that an understanding of why people feel the need to cheat the system must inform future tax and benefit reform.(2) Meanwhile, the 'allowable earnings limit' for single people aged 24+ on unemployment benefit/JSA had not increased from £5 per week since 1988. (It still has not!) That out-of-work benefit levels have not kept up with earnings and/or the greed and tardiness of utility companies and landlords cannot be laid at the feet of just one government — it has been going on since 1988!

Meanwhile, an upsurge of early morning queues outside CAB offices on high streets demonstrated the reality of masses of people in economic crisis. Yet now, with cuts in central government grants to local authorities, CAB offices have been moved off high roads where estate agent offices now festoon 'up-market' areas and legal loan shark offices and bettings offices litter less glamorous ones. And as 'talking with people dealing with public sector cuts' blogger and Honorary Member of Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group Member Kate Belgrave reports, 'It can be really hard to get welfare advice'.(3)

But there is 'good advice' and 'bad advice' both for citizens and governments and opposition parties wanting to 'reform the welfare state'. American health insurance company company Unum (formerly Unum Provident) has been 'advising' successive UK governments on 'welfare reform' since at least the mid-1990's,(4) and Labour Party Deputy Leadership contender Caroline Flint MP declares in her 'interests' that she has staff and office space sponsored by lobbyist firm Sovereign Strategy. Sovereign Strategy clients include Maximus, a corporation that profits from the 'welfare to work' industry.(5)

While we might anticipate Camden Council taking Geoffrey and Carol's eviction as their cue to sell a vacant property, we would commend anyone concerned about the level of their fuel bills to consult Fuel Poverty Action: Tel: 07751 748 026/07586 482 157; Email: fuelpovertyaction@gmail.com; Website: http://www.fuelpovertyaction.org.uk/ (6)

Notes

(1) http://www.camdennewjournal.com/sceviction

(2) http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2006/06/23/why-people-work-informally-while-claiming-benefits-special-report/

(3) http://www.katebelgrave.com/2015/08/it-can-be-really-hard-to-get-welfare-rights-advice/

(4) http://dpac.uk.net/2012/04/a-tale-of-two-models-disabled-people-vs-unum-atos-government-and-disability-charities-debbie-jolly/

and

http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/library/THE%20HIDDEN%20AGENDA-a-research-summary-March-2013-FINAL.pdf

(5) https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-006&ei=utf-8&fr=ytff1-&p=%22caroline%20flint%22%20%22sovereign%20strategy%22&type=

Lobbyist firm connected to Maximus dabbles in Labour Party Deputy Leadership campaign? (Whatever next?)

We have hear about 'insurgents' attempting to corrupt the Labour Party Leadership contest by joining up en mass to vote for Jeremy Corbyn. But as Green Party of England & Wales' one MP so far has observed, UK politics has been corrupted by corporations.(1)

Now it has emerged that a lobbying firm connected to global workfare till you drop company Maximus is bolstering the Labour Party Deputy Leadership campaign of Blairite Labour MP Caroline Flint.(2)

For more on Maximus, see Maximus' search results on DPAC website (3) and Boycott Workfare website.(4)

Notes

(1) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/22/influence-mps-regulated-lobbying-paid-consultancies
(2) http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/labours-flint-sparks-concerns-over-lobbying-donation-firms-maximus-links/
(3) http://dpac.uk.net/?s=maximus&searchsubmit=

(4) https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=maximu+site%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boycottworkfare.org%2F&fr=yfp-t-903

Would you trust fraudsters with wellbeing of the most vulnerable and public money?

The Independent reports that: the Department for Work & Pensions has admitted to making up quotes by 'benefit claimants' saying sanctions helped them.(1)

(Work in progress)

Notes

(1) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-admits-making-up-quotes-by-benefit-claimants-saying-sanctions-helped-them-10460351.html

Questioning the wisdom of 'boot camp for young unemployed' in 'no excuses' crackdown on youth unemployment

By Dude Swheatie of Kwug

The Green Party website announces:(1)

Greens slam government over ‘boot camp’ plans

17 August 2015

The Green Party has accused the government of fighting a ‘war on young people’ after ministers unveiled plans to force unemployed young people to attend a three-week ‘boot camp.’ (2)

Amelia Womack, the Green Party’s Deputy Leader, has called the plans ‘damaging’ and called for the government to take a longer-term approach to youth unemployment. 

Womack said:

“This latest announcement is yet another outrageous step in what can only be described as the Conservatives’ war on young people. This move and the rhetoric surrounding it are typical of the government’s approach to unemployment: placing the blame on ‘welfare culture’ and those affected rather than taking real action to tackle the root causes of youth unemployment....

- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/08/17/greens-slam-government-over-%E2%80%98boot-camp%E2%80%99-plans/#sthash.NbQOX1Jj.dpuf

Greens slam government over ‘boot camp’ plans

17 August 2015

The Green Party has accused the government of fighting a ‘war on young people’ after ministers unveiled plans to force unemployed young people to attend a three-week ‘boot camp.’ 

Amelia Womack, the Green Party’s Deputy Leader, has called the plans ‘damaging’ and called for the government to take a longer-term approach to youth unemployment. 

Womack said:

“This latest announcement is yet another outrageous step in what can only be described as the Conservatives’ war on young people. This move and the rhetoric surrounding it are typical of the government’s approach to unemployment: placing the blame on ‘welfare culture’ and those affected rather than taking real action to tackle the root causes of youth unemployment.

- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/08/17/greens-slam-government-over-%E2%80%98boot-camp%E2%80%99-plans/#sthash.NbQOX1Jj.dpuf

Greens slam government over ‘boot camp’ plans

17 August 2015

The Green Party has accused the government of fighting a ‘war on young people’ after ministers unveiled plans to force unemployed young people to attend a three-week ‘boot camp.’ 

Amelia Womack, the Green Party’s Deputy Leader, has called the plans ‘damaging’ and called for the government to take a longer-term approach to youth unemployment. 

Womack said:

“This latest announcement is yet another outrageous step in what can only be described as the Conservatives’ war on young people. This move and the rhetoric surrounding it are typical of the government’s approach to unemployment: placing the blame on ‘welfare culture’ and those affected rather than taking real action to tackle the root causes of youth unemployment.

- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/08/17/greens-slam-government-over-%E2%80%98boot-camp%E2%80%99-plans/#sthash.NbQOX1Jj.dpuf

While I broadly concur with this statement, I suppose it would take a Young Green to say that this "can only be described as the Conservatives’ war on young people."

Threats against poor unemployed people are nothing new, and Amelia Womack is correct in observing that this announcement and Government policy is directed toward condemning young unemployed people more than supporting them. The lack of support has actually manifested itself from the time that Mass Higher Education was brought in at the expense of proper mandatory grant support for students. And of course Mass Higher Education largely masked the unemployment system, just while the Microsoft dominated PC industry invested heavily into the promotion of Microsoft Office related jobcentre-funded training courses. Furthering the burden on young people, the Blair Government brought in tuition fees that widened the gap between student outcomes based on parental background.

I was a dole queue veteran even before becoming a mature graduate. Applying Sociology graduate discipline to my vast reservoir of experience of a progressively worsening system, questions I would ask would include:

1. What training would these 'work coaches' have in order to qualify as 'Work Coaches'? Eg, would they actually have experience and understanding of what goes on in job recruitment, or would they be of the old school that says, "The more jobs you apply for, the better your chances. [Quality of job application is irrelevant in the numbers game. To maximise your jobsearch output, draw up one CV and if you don't have home computer access, get that photocopied and sent out for each job you apply for. [We don't care how much you waste employers' time with output that will be binned very shortly. Our game is to keep you busy rather toeing our bullying line rather than demanding more support. There is no alternative]."
2. Will the power of Work Coaches to sanction be in any sense of proportion to their understanding of the people they are given the power to sanction?
3. Will ther power of Work Coaches to sanction apply only to jobcentre employees, or will it include employees of privatised 'workfare companies' that have peverse financial incentives to reduce the claimant count at any cost?
4. How does the Government treatment of young unemployed people relate to the increasingly urgent need to help support older people in a society where centenarians are becoming more the norm than the exception?
5. Will this clamp down on younger people's benefit entitlement increase slavery?
6. Re the Conservatives' "'no excuses' crackdown on youth unemployment," is this not just a matter of abusers always blaming their victims?(3)
7. How much does the weekly crack budget of those promoting such rubbish policies compare with what they are keen to limit the incomes of those less well off young unemployed people to?
   ;-)

Notes

(1) https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/08/17/greens-slam-government-over-%E2%80%98boot-camp%E2%80%99-plans/

(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jobless-young-people-to-attend-boot-camps-in-no-excuses-crackdown-on-youth-unemployment-10458357.html

(3) http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2013/08/generation-jobless-worst-youth-unemployment-crisis-european-history-should-be-blam

While I broadly concur with this statement, I suppose it would take a Young Green to say that this "can only be described as the Conservatives’ war on young people."

Threats against poor unemployed people are nothing new, and Amelia Womack is correct in observing that this announcement and Government policy is directed toward condemning young unemployed people more than supporting them. The lack of support has actually manifested itself from the time that Mass Higher Education was brought in at the expense of proper mandatory grant support for students. And of course Mass Higher Education largely masked the unemployment system, just while the Microsoft dominated PC industry invested heavily into the promotion of Microsoft Office related jobcentre-funded training courses. Furthering the burden on young people, the Blair Government brought in tuition fees that widened the gap between student outcomes based on parental background.

I was a dole queue veteran even before becoming a mature graduate. Applying Sociology graduate discipline to my vast reservoir of experience of a progressively worsening system, questions I would ask would include:
1. What training would these 'work coaches' have in order to qualify as 'Work Coaches'? Eg, would they actually have experience and understanding of what goes on in job recruitment, or would they be of the old school that says, "The more jobs you apply for, the better your chances. [Quality of job application is irrelevant in the numbers game. To maximise your jobsearch output, draw up one CV and if you don't have home computer access, get that photocopied and sent out for each job you apply for. [We don't care how much you waste employers' time with output that will be binned very shortly. Our game is to keep you busy rather toeing our bullying line rather than demanding more support. There is no alternative]."
2. Will the power of Work Coaches to sanction be in any sense of proportion to their understanding of the people they are given the power to sanction?
3. Will ther power of Work Coaches to sanction apply only to jobcentre employees, or will it include employees of privatised 'workfare companies' that have peverse financial incentives to reduce the claimant count at any cost?
4. How does the Government treatment of young unemployed people relate to the increasingly urgent need to help support older people in a society where centenarians are becoming more the norm than the exception?
5. Will this clamp down on younger people's benefit entitlement increase slavery?

Dude Swheatie of Kwug - See more at: http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/greens-boot-camps-part-of-governments.html#comment-form

While I broadly concur with this statement, I suppose it would take a Young Green to say that this "can only be described as the Conservatives’ war on young people."

Threats against poor unemployed people are nothing new, and Amelia Womack is correct in observing that this announcement and Government policy is directed toward condemning young unemployed people more than supporting them. The lack of support has actually manifested itself from the time that Mass Higher Education was brought in at the expense of proper mandatory grant support for students. And of course Mass Higher Education largely masked the unemployment system, just while the Microsoft dominated PC industry invested heavily into the promotion of Microsoft Office related jobcentre-funded training courses. Furthering the burden on young people, the Blair Government brought in tuition fees that widened the gap between student outcomes based on parental background.

I was a dole queue veteran even before becoming a mature graduate. Applying Sociology graduate discipline to my vast reservoir of experience of a progressively worsening system, questions I would ask would include:
1. What training would these 'work coaches' have in order to qualify as 'Work Coaches'? Eg, would they actually have experience and understanding of what goes on in job recruitment, or would they be of the old school that says, "The more jobs you apply for, the better your chances. [Quality of job application is irrelevant in the numbers game. To maximise your jobsearch output, draw up one CV and if you don't have home computer access, get that photocopied and sent out for each job you apply for. [We don't care how much you waste employers' time with output that will be binned very shortly. Our game is to keep you busy rather toeing our bullying line rather than demanding more support. There is no alternative]."
2. Will the power of Work Coaches to sanction be in any sense of proportion to their understanding of the people they are given the power to sanction?
3. Will ther power of Work Coaches to sanction apply only to jobcentre employees, or will it include employees of privatised 'workfare companies' that have peverse financial incentives to reduce the claimant count at any cost?
4. How does the Government treatment of young unemployed people relate to the increasingly urgent need to help support older people in a society where centenarians are becoming more the norm than the exception?
5. Will this clamp down on younger people's benefit entitlement increase slavery?

Dude Swheatie of Kwug - See more at: http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/greens-boot-camps-part-of-governments.html#comment-form

North London Coroner: vulnerable person took his own life as a direct consequence of his being evicted by Genesis HA

North London Coroner's Court Letterhead

Page 1 of the Rule 43 regarding the death of an ex-Genesis HA tenant

I am required under the terms of Rule 43 of the Coroners (Amendment) Rules 2008 to report to:
Claire Murdock,
Chief Executive,
Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust,
Stephenson House
75 Hampstead Road
London NW1 2PL

---

And following the inquest touching the death of Nigel* Firminger heard before Coroner Andrew Walker at The Coroners Court sitting at Barnet on the 10th day of July 2013** and having heard evidence the Coroner had found that (b) the evidence gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist in the future and

(c) In the Coroner's opinion, action should be taken to prevent the occurence or continuation of such circumstances, or to eliminate or reduce the risk of death created by such circumstances,

the coroner may report the circumstances to a person who the coroner believes may have power to take such action.

The Circumstances

On the second of April 2012, Nigel Patrick Firminger was found at his former home having taken his own life as a direct consequence of his being evicted and the effect that the eviction had on his mental health.

Mr Firminger was suffering from a mental health issues that were not known by the organisation providing his accommodation or the court dealing with the eviction.

It is against this background that H M Coroner begs to report that:

Consideration to be given to:-

A form that may be filled in by the staff conducting an assessment that the patient can take away with them that identifies that the person is to be considered vulnerable that can be passed to other agencies such as those providing accommodation.

Your attention is drawn to the following provisions:

Response to report under rule 43

---

Page 2 of the Rule 43 regarding the death of an ex-Genesis HA tenant

43A, —(1) A person to whom a coroner sends a report under rule 43(1) must give the coroner a written response to the report containing—

(a) details of any action that has been taken or which it is proposed will be taken whether in response to the report or otherwise; or

(b) an explanation as to why no action is proposed

within the period of 56 days beginning with the day on which the report is sent.

Extension of time

43B. A coroner may extend the period of 56 days mentioned in rule 43A(1) (even if an application for extension is made after the time for compliance has expired).

---

Signed this the 25th day of July 2013
(Coroner's signature and stamp)
by Coroner Adrew Walker

---

Notes

* The coroner's spelling of Nygell's forename as 'Nigel' is as presented on the Rule 43 document, and differs from the 'Nygell' spelling given on the cremation service programme from September 2012.
** This was an adjourned hearing. The original November 2012 hearing was adjourned because, following KUWG's presentation of a leaflet outlining the circumstances leading to Nygell's death and the fact that Nygell's relatives were unable to attend on that occasion, the Coroner had declared that "new evidence" had come to light.

Mon 17 Aug @ 2pm: KUWG demonstration against Genesis Housing Association cleansing itself of home building for plebs

Mon 17 Aug, 2pm at

Genesis Housing Association’s HQ:

64 Pratt Street London NW1 0DL (tube: Camden Town)
Postcode map

Social Landord? What a fraud!

Our protest is in response to Genesis Housing Association’s decision to drop social housing: http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/aug/07/housing-asssociation-no-longer-build-homes-poor-genesis

Please join us! Or blog, tweet or just spread the word.

We consider this ‘The Genesis of UK Oligarchy’

After all, Genesis’ housing stock was funded by tax payers which this private company was meant to manage. But now, Genesis HA has decided to:

• No longer build any social (read: public) housing
• Only build private homes for sale, to rent at full market rates or for shared ownership
• consider selling or raising rents on their existing social housing stock, once the property become vacant (read: once existing tenants get evicted and/or dispersed*),

Genesis Housing Assn screws the public purse and us

How many eviction suicides already?

How many vacant possession suicides already?

Osborne's pals sponge off our public purse

Statement by Ivy from Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group (KUWG) with placard designs and a little editing by Dude Swheatie of Kwug

Note

* as evidenced when KUWG member Nygell Firminger committed suicide right after his eviction from Genesis, who then sold his flat for a reported £375K after North London Coroner ruled that Nygell had committed suicide due to the stress induced by eviction.

Brent Council's 'stonewalling until complainants give up'

Former LB Brent Human Resources Director Cara Davani left Brent Council's employ under very shadowy circumstances, and some locals have been asking questions about amounts and reasons for severance payment, while Brent Council has maintained an insistence that the public has no right to know, it's all confidential between employer and ex-staff member. Brent Council: Same two questions — why no answers? (1)

Guest blogger on the Wembley Matters blog asks for people who agree that local residents have a right to know such matters not only leave a comment, but also ask their local councillors to raise questions on these matters. (2)

So I have left my comment on the blog piece: (3)

My understanding re the amount of any payoff is that when a CEO leaves, say, a major bank, the amount becomes public knowledge. Maybe that is in the interests of 'keeping shareholders on board' as it indicates some 'transparency'.

Brent Council, in proferring 'confidentiality' as grounds for not disclosing the amount of any such payment to Ms C Davani, seems to me to be saying, "Council Tax payers have no right to know how much of their money is lavished on former staff in such settlements.

I shall forward link to this blog piece to Kilburn Unemployed group members so that those who live in LB Brent can add their comments.

Dude Swheatie of Kwug

Notes

(1) http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/brent-council-same-two-questions-why-no.html
(2) ibid.
(3) Comments form http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/brent-council-same-two-questions-why-no.html#comment-form

Spied-upon political activists and 'the mainstream'

By Dude Swheatie of Kwug

While reading an autobiographical book of American 1950's and 1960's anti-blackisting campaigner John Henry Faulk, Fear on Trial,(1) I have also come across this Islington Tribune article about Metropolitan Police spying on Labour Party activists including Jeremy Corbyn MP.(2)

Already familiar with reports of Metropolitan Police spying on Green Party activists including London Assembly Member and now-life-peer Jenny Jones,(3) I wonder whether more-mainstream politicians such as Yvette Cooper seek their own salvation from being spied upon by being downright nasty to benefit claimants including sick and disabled people?

For it was really Yvette Cooper who authorised the harsher, Mk 2 Work Capability Assessment (4) that was not piloted until after the Con-Dem coalition had been formed. (It was actually the Mk 2 Work Capability Assessment that was used for the re-assessment 'migration' of claimants from Incapacity Benefit.)(5)

And I am reminded of a Kris Kristofferson song, The Law is for Protection of the People, (6)regarding police officers attacking the vulnerable or at least 'temporarily incapacitated' because of their deviance from 'the mainstream'.

Source Notes (all link addresses noted on date of blog piece publication)

(1) http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/795321.Fear_on_Trial

(2) http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2015/apr/did-holloway-road-uni%E2%80%99s-former-police-spy-watch-veteran-islington-mp-corbyn

(3) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/green-party-peer-put-on-database-of-extremists-by-police

(4) http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=568244

Even harsher new ESA Medical approved''(warning very bad news inc)

(5) http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2010/09/06/welfare-rights-the-reassessment-of-incapacity-benefit-claimants/

(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK8TSJuBMgM Kris Kristofferson singing his own composition, The Law is for Protection of the People

Social workers, Social Care Act and benefit cuts

This is the current 'Spotlight' article link on Community Care (online) mag's home page:

‘To take our Care Act duties seriously, social workers must understand the impact of benefit cuts’

A social worker assesses the impact of the benefit changes announced in the Budget on people supported by adults' social services

 

"Now that's something I call 'joined up thinking'! " says Dude Swheatie of Kwug. And the Community Care 'Spotlight' article even contains a link to something reasonably sensible from The Spectator!

Grayling as Justice Minister abolished access to justice, he did not 'erode' it

Guest blog piece by Rev'd Paul Nicolson of Taxpayers Against Justice

The Guardian view on cuts to the justice budget: eroding the rule of law

THE GUARDIAN IS SOFT ON CHRIS GRAYLING

"Eroding" access to justice is too generous a word to describe to the introduction of a surcharge in the Magistrates Courts by Chris Grayling, the Minister of Justice, of up to £1200 without any consultation just before the election.

"Abolishing" access to justice would be closer to reality. It devastates the poorest citizens who cannot pay for a TV licence, a bus or a train ticket, or whose children are persistent truants; they are are prosecuted as criminals.

Simultaneously the jobcentres are stopping people's incomes with a sanction from one month to three years. Sanctions are draconian punishments by the jobcentres without a fair trial.

If the magistrates are to take into account that loss of means and any vulnerable circumstances in setting a proportionate fine there has to be a trial. But the guilty and not guilty sanctioned persons are unlikely to go to court and risk the new surcharges.

They will therefore be fined £200 plus £150 costs in their absence, which they cannot pay. The enforcement process then leads to the bailiffs on the doorstep demanding immediate payment of the fine plus costs of £350 plus their fees of £265.

The surcharge should suspended immediately.

http://www.theguardian.com/…/the-guardian-view-on-cuts-to-t…