Demonstrate against benefits assessment homicide, Kentish Town Jobcentre, Weds 25 Jan 2017, Noon till 1pm

Man ruled 'fit for work' dies from heart attack on way home from Jobcentre | Camden New Journal

At Thursday's kuwg meeting, we decided to return to 

Kentish Town Jobcentre

174-178 Kentish Town Road

London NW5 2AG

on 

Wednesday 25 January, Noon till 1pm.

We made this decision after reading the CNJ Top story and Editorial Comment below. As this could happen to any of us, we cannot sit and not let the scummy rules of the DWP and JCP allow this to happen without protest. Wearing black would seem appropriate. Hopefully Jobcentre Staff can join us!

The Coroner should delve into the Medical Assessor industry, and the DWP-Governmental "turning a blind eye" methods of allowing vulnerable people to "slip thru the net."

Claimants and Workers Unite! Pass the word!

CJ

Man ruled 'fit for work' dies from heart attack on way home from Jo... A MAN collapsed and died in the street after being ruled “fit to work” and forced to sign on.

Related link address

1. http://www.camdennewjournal.com/job-centre-heart-attack-ruling

'Extremist Disruption Orders' and Benefit Sanctions

Peter Tatchell draws attention to the potential perils of Conservative Government's 'Extremist Disruption Orders':

Minister comes up with 10 different definitions in just over 60 minutes

Extremism Disruption Orders – Conflicting, inconsistent definitions

EDOs are a dangerous threat to free speech & political dissent

London, UK – 19 July 2016
“The government’s planned Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs) are so vague and ill-defined that they are a potential threat to free speech and dissenting opinions. When questioned by the UK parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) on 29 June, the then counter extremism minister, Karen Bradley MP, offered ten different definitions of extremism in just over 60 minutes. The government wants to penalise extremism before it has even agreed what it is. This renders EDOs both anti-democratic and ineffectual. They are not consistent with human rights law,” said Anastasia Kyriacou, the advocacy officer of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.
Watch this video of the government minister trying but failing ten times to offer a clear and consistent definition of extremism:


The government has belatedly agreed with demands by the Defend Free Speech campaign for a public consultation on EDOs – although a date and timetable has not yet been set.... Continued on Peter Tatchell Foundation website.(1)

Cited in the same Peter Tatchell blog post, Peter Calvert — Campaign Director of the Defend Free Speech campaign — says:

“The Defend Free Speech campaign, and many of the groups associated with it, are greatly concerned that the proposed 'civil orders regime' will damage both security and civil liberties. They risk distracting the authorities away from terrorism and violence and into monitoring and punishing legitimate expressions of opinion...."

The State has already started clamping down on not only 'legitimate expressions of opinion', but also the rights of benefit claimants to be accompanied to DWP interviews as in the trumped up charges against Tony Cox of Scottish Unemployed Workers Network.(2) Kilburn Unemployed Workers Network members are also well aware of Kilburn Jobcentre management and security's addiction to calling out the cops to attempt to get us to disperse and not point out what is going on in that building.

A Google search for the key term "benefit sanctions" specific to this blog site at the time of writing has just come up with

About 3,500 results (0.64 seconds)(3)

There is virtually no reporting or acknowledgement of the facts of benefit sanctions on BBC TV News, yet facts regarding benefit sanctions are outlined in a recent Kwug Blog post, The new Prime Minister as ultimate mandator of safeguarding for vulnerable people.(4) 

That outline, however, omits reference to UN investigators' concerns about 'access to due process' and 'access to justice' for benefit sanctions victims.(5) Maybe this Government will resolve the matter of that opposition to the corporate homicides committed under benefit sanctions will be to declare the UN investigators outside extremists or international terrorists?(6)

Personally, I would regard not taking any kind of action against such atrocities a fundamental attack against the nature of society and of community. "It is not freedom from conditions; it is freedom to act against those conditions."

Dude Swheatie of Kwug

Link addresses

1. http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/free-speech/government-can-t-define-extremism-wants-penalise-it
2. https://scottishunemployedworkers.net/2016/06/23/class-justice/
3. https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=IH2QV_D3Gcvb8AfO1rzYBA&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22benefit+sanctions%22+site:+http:%2F%2Fkilburnunemployed.blogspot.co.uk
4. http://kilburnunemployed.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/the-new-pm-as-ultimate-mandator-of-safeguarding-for-vulnerable-people.html
5. http://kilburnunemployed.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/camerons-16m-mansion-un-criticism-of-ex-pm-legacy-for-poor.html
6. https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=VYOQV5ClM9Db8AePs6nAAw&gws_rd=ssl#q=benefit+sanctions+deaths

Benefits & Work Publishing: Why Claimants Died Plus The Cover Up That May See IDS On Trial

Why Claimants Died Plus The Cover Up That May See IDS On Trial

Dear Reader,

The DWP finally released very heavily redacted versions of the 49 peer reviews into claimant deaths last week.

In fact, some of the documents have been so heavily redacted that there is literally nothing left other than headings and standard text. Every word of substance, including details of lessons learned and recommendations for the future has been redacted.

Yet, the documents still reveal a great deal.

Most of the reports appear to be about claimants being forced off incapacity benefit (IB) and onto employment and support allowance (ESA).

In at least six of the 29 reports that contain any detail, there was a failure to even identify claimants as vulnerable, let alone offer them additional support...

More at http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3510-18may-2016-update

Dude Swheatie of Kwug adds regarding what the above reveals of DWP corporate culture, I am reminded of staff trade union posters that the DWP tried to ban

1. See the posters the government tried to ban - PCS

   www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/pcs...Cached

   Managers in government call centres have been taking down union posters that expose the brutal way workers are told to treat people on benefits.

Toward a Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group response to Osborne's 2016 Spring Budget

Placard statement: Benefit cuts = corporate homicide

When benefit claimants receive letters confirming their/our 'entitlement' letters, those letters state that the amount they will receive from the DWP is the amount that the law says they are entitled to, which also allegedly is how much the claimant needs to live on. These amounts have been in decline for decades as Revd Paul Nicolson has pointed out. Eg,
http://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.org.uk/946/ and

 http://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.org.uk/benefit-sanctions-are-state-sponsored-oppression-against-the-poorest-vulnerable-and-disabled-people-of-the-uk/

Those 'entitlement' letters also state that the claimant must inform them of any extra money they might receive, even as gifts from concerned friends and relatives who know more of the claimant's situation than distant 'decision makers'. The Government argument is that non-declaration of such income amounts to 'benefit fraud'.

Osborne etc in their 'upbringing' as millionaires remind me of military generals with sets of toy soldiers that they send off to the slaughter of war. WTF do they know about costs of living and dying?