Latest News
Welcome to the News & Updates section of dwpcorruption.co.uk. Some articles have been deleted and some replaced with more important issues, first of all i would like to thank all the people who commented upon my recent video Click here to see the Video, highlighting HM the Queens support, and hopefully you the general public will keep your stories coming in thick and fast and support the exposure of common purpose infiltrators within the public bodies concerned, including many government departments such as the DWP and Job Centre Plus.
We appear to be winning the war against these terrible atrocities involving the corrupt employees as the feedback we are getting is now naming and shaming employees within each department, you will find a below titled ‘Whistle Blowing on the DWP in Brighton!’ from a gentleman within the pensions department within the DWP that appears to be run by common purpose infiltrators. We have passed this information onto Brian Gerrsih for the UK column, when you read this story, you the general public will know why your pension and your rights are at risk. We expect another invasion of your rights under article 10 of the human rights act freedom to express yourself as the labour government are not going to want information like this exposed and will do all possible to stop exposure this to include attempts to shut the site down as it will create uproar! If i was in your shoes and relying upon a pension i would also be concerned, so if you work in Brighton at a DWP office dealing with pensions it is probably YOU & YOUR department under scrutiny!
19/07/08 - MP Philip Bushill-Mathews - Democracy, rights and freedom of speech
Well here we have it in black and white, this very brave euro MP Philip Bushill-Mathews stating that democracy, rights and freedom of speech under article ten of the human rights act, should be acted upon by our UK labour government and that the publics opinion should be heard and taken into account.
Now the question that we ask of our labour government as UK citizens is quite simple. Where common purpose is concerned and the unlawful vindictive malicious persecution is implemented involving our labour government that constantly ignores its own advisers to stop the unlawful acts of malfeasance that are encouraged in this cover up culture. Which is occurring within all government departments and the crown? These government establishments include the DWP Job Centre Plus, the government ombudsman, and all councils across the UK. It further extends to the judicial system and major corruption in the trafficking of children involving judges selling children for monetary gain.
The point here is that if the labour government is ignoring major corruption within government departments and acts of unlawful vindictive malicious persecution? So how on earth were the labour party government criminals going to implement fair democratic rights, where a vote on the EU is concerned?
As my own issue on dwpcorruption.co.uk, clearly shows. I have experienced this situation of not being listened to by my own MP Ian Parson (Dudly in West Midlands), whom according to research like the many is part of the common purpose. Where they are working behind closed doors to bring together a manufactured plan to implement actions of the new world order. All of which violates the liberties and rights of the UK population
It does appear however, this MEP of the conservative party, Philip Bushill-Mathews, genuinely believes in democratic public involvement to ascertain what is right for our country and its people that live in it.
Martin on behalf of dwpcorruption.co.uk
Here is the article taken from the Telford Journal
Article Published: 18/07/2008
02/06/08 - Common Purpose Cheats Versus Those Who Are Naturally More Capable
People who are privileged and get where they are as a result tend to behave as if it was a right and so didn't receive preferential treatment, whereas instead of treating disadvantaged people with having been left out they treat them as if it is what they deserved and add insult to injury.
Well, spare a thought for these blinkered imbeciles since privileges are not capabilities but just external help to boost the performance and development of those who get it and therefore success is a combination of inner capabilities and support from outside, whereas those who achieve without privileges have all their success down to what their inner capabilities are, which is often much more than the puffed-up imbeciles which many wealthy professionals tend to present themselves as. The worst of a successful disadvantaged person is often better than the best of a privileged person, so anyone who I have outperformed that has had everything handed to them on a plate I feel sorry for since if they had equal opportunities they wouldn't have been able to suck eggs.
But then, with all the deception exercised by these people as well as trying to use their wealth for one-upmanship, it shows they are not worthy of being seen as more capable, especially when compared with those of us who have a gift from Mother Nature which money cannot buy.
We have capabilities on our inner-self which we will always have wherever we go and we will do what we can to dodge the prejudices and weaknesses in life which hinder us which can be a problem, but unfortunately we are victims in these situations, whereas the privileged will always have to take their privileges with them to perform which means they are cheats since without them they wouldn't manage since they are weak on the inner-self and will always take this weakness with them wherever they go.
It is often a pity they cannot accept us for our capabilities nor let us use our capabilities for the best constructive use when we experience all the prejudice, so the only use it has is in defence and confrontation against these control freaks within society who try to tailor things against us and hold us to ransom – they might be able to hold us to ransom to some extent on the outside by betrayal and neglect of our rights but they cannot control our inner development or the way we think and this can be too much for some of these control freaks to handle.
Maybe this is why the Common Purpose clique doesn't accept me for what I am be cause they don't like the truth and see me as a threat, therefore exercise their authority in a similar way to how cowards on The Weakest Link do by making strong look weak, but by making innocent look guilty and victims look like criminals, etc.. Well, my intelligence will continue to be beyond what their status and wealth can gain for them and they will never be able to prove me wrong in my arguments. As you know, bureaucracy is a tool for the corrupt to make wrongdoing public sector workers come out clean when they have abused, betrayed, exploited and neglected the vulnerable within society. Bureaucracy is a privilege used by those who rely on gang power or external help to win, not personal capabilities, so if bureaucracy wins it is a reflection of the cowards in the public sector and government.
In general, the law is not out there to help protect the innocent and vulnerable people from abuse, betrayal, exploitation or neglect, but a useful tool which privileged cowards have access to with their wealth to come out clean after exercising evil tactics on innocent individuals. In general, the law is for wealthy wrongdoers who are cowards and bullies.
25/05/08 - Public Services news : Wicks "sickened" by DWP pornography revelations
Wicks "sickened" by DWP pornography revelations. Thursday, 26 Aug 2004 15:39. Wicks. Wicks "sickened" by porn access.
http://www.politics.co.uk/public-services/wicks-sickened-by-dwp-pornography-revelations-$3285155.htm
13/05/2008 - Corrupt Government and Infiltrators of Common Purpose
Steven Hamilton wrote:
Below the following link to this story - about "The evil, pathetic, misguided and pitiful deluded bastards behind Common Purpose" - I have for the benefit of the reader 'ripped the whole text of it'.
Lets not for get that All of our 'posturing' and 'posing' Politicals [of all the major political parties] have not an ounce of backbone amongst their 'majority' - They are all "Finished". Finished because of their inability to be able to admit that they have "all" [By Majority] been caught out feeding their own personal greed at the Expenses gravytrain trough - besides other things. [Politicians have been unlawfully duping The Public for at least 70 years]
In other words the "Duped" - who proclaim themselves to be our guardians & masters are the ultimately "Duped" - because they CANNOT & WILL NOT - countenance that it is they who have been double duped - because of their own personal greed. And all the time the slowly creeping Communist Judaic hand hides behind it; the most "Hidden Hand" - of the Rothschilds & their guiding evil darkness in the name of Adam Wieshaupt , and his evil-greedy fear-mongering decendents & Co.
Steve .
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Elite-trainer-gets-11year-state.4053633.jp
Elite trainer gets 11-year state freebie
Published Date: 06 May 2008
By Rob Waugh
A training provider which has enjoyed privileged access to Downing Street has been given free office accommodation in a Government department for the last 11 years , the Yorkshire Post can reveal today. Common Purpose, which has run elite training seminars at Number 10, was granted free office space at the Department for Children, Schools and Families in Sheffield in 1997 and has enjoyed its use ever since.
A Freedom of Info rmation request from the Yorkshire Post revealed the accommodation, which is fully serviced and includes the free use of phones, has a commercial value of £5,000 per year.
The DCSF admits it has no formal record of the decision being made and no rental or tenancy agreement of any kind. It is one of several Government departments that has paid thousands of pounds to Common Purpose to provide training courses.
A spokeswoman said the free office accommodation had been given in line with the policy of the then Education Secretary David Blunkett , a Sheffield MP, who had wanted to build better links with the local community.
But Philip Davies , Conservative MP for Shipley, has criticised the relationship between Government and Common Purpose, which is both a limited company and registered charity. He believes the organisation, whose training "graduates" include officials from a wide variety of public sector organisations, is used primarily for networking. Mr Davies asked why Common Purpose was granted free office space when other organisations are not and is set to raise Common Purpose's charitable status with the Charity Commission in the light of the fees it charges, some of which are in excess of £5,000 per course.
"Common Purpose has all the hallmarks of a networking organisation for the top brass within the public sector in particular, and it seems to be rather shy of putting the content of its training into the public domain which seems unusual for a charitable organisation. "I think that taxpayers are entitled to know why so much of their money should be given to Common Purpose both in terms of free accommodation and in training costs," he said. Parliamentary questions from Mr Davies directed to Government departments revealed several had paid substantial sums to Common Purpose, with the Department for Work and Pensions paying £238,000 between 2002/03 and 2006/07. The DCSF paid for contracts worth a total of nearly £52,000 between 2004 and 2005 and a total of £11,600 between 2006 and 2007 to send officials on training courses.
The department said the provision of free office accommodation had "no bearing" on the decision to pay Common Purpose to provide training. It said procurement practices aimed at ensuring the provision of appropriate, value for money training would have been followed.A spokeswoman said: "Common Purpose is a charitable organisation which provides leadership development by bringing together leaders from private, public and the voluntary sectors .
"We appreciate that notwithstanding our good intentions, record-keeping could be improved, which is why we have decided that we should now agree more formally the terms of tenancy in such cases."
Common Purpose said it was not the only charity that had use of office space in Government buildings. DCSF said it had provided a small amount of office space to an organisation called Learn to Lead at its Moorfoot building in Sheffield and to the Queen's Anniversary Prizes for Higher and Further Education in Caxton House in London .
The department declined to respond when asked for details about Learn to Lead which is not a registered charity. It did confirm that neither had been paid to provide any services.
A Common Purpose spokeswoman said: "In pursuit of our charitable objects, we run educational programmes for leaders and decision-makers across all sectors and at every stage of their career. Participants (or their organisations) pay a tuition fee in order to take part. We are able to offer some bursary assistance for those applicants who do not have the means to pay the full tuition fee and otherwise wouldn't be able to access our programmes."
She added that courses had a wide diversity of participants with around one third from the public sector and the remainder from the private and not-for-profit/voluntary sectors .
Mr Blunkett acknowledged that when he took over as Education Secretary in 1997 he had been keen to "stimulate a greater contribution to Sheffield by the Department, which is a major employer in the city".
This had taken the form of a range of activities. He added that as part of this initiative, legitimate, non-profit, organisations that contributed to the development of the city were rented premises - although he made it clear he was not party to the detailed decision-making to offer rent-free office space.
Mr Blunkett said: "I unders tand that Common Purpose is a leadership organisation that would fit that criteria. If Common Purpose were not, or are not, making that contribution then they shouldn't have the offices."
13/05/2008 - COUPLE HIT OUT AT JOBCENTRE “DISCRIMINATION”
By Claire McCormack
JOBCENTRE PLUS has launched an investigation into an allegation by an English couple of racial discrimination at a Dundee branch.
Grace Long and Jamie Sewell of Whitehall Crescent have been attempting to start a job seekers claim at the Wellgate Centre office, and say they have been met with bad service and lack of co-operation by staff.
Firstly Ms Long said they were transferring their claim from the Cupar branch to the one in Wellgate, but staff told them a new claim had to be made.
She then phoned to make an appointment to do so, only to be told it was not necessary as they were simply transferring.
“We were blatantly told that we had been lying to the Jobcentre since we first claimed in Cupar as they have no record of my student income,” said Ms Long.
“I was reduced to tears by the arrogance and lack of decency.”
The couple say they were disgusted at the way they were treated as if they had been dishonest, as well as the lack of communication between employees. They felt as though they were not being taken seriously.
They were also unhappy at being refused the chance to speak to another adviser when they were dissatisfied with the one they were allocated.
Ms Long continued, “We have never been treated with such rudeness and ignorance as the people who dealt with our claim. Although we are “signing on” in the Jobcentre we still have not received a letter of award and are still without any money eight weeks on.
During all of this time we have been applying for jobs and hoping some money will come from somewhere for us to live on.
I have lived in Scotland for 12 years and I have never been treated in such a way as by the staff at Wellgate's Jobcentre.
I am aware of Scotland 's “Show Racism the Red Card” campaign, yet as my partner and I are English we feel we have been treated very differently from our Scottish counterparts.”
She added that she demanded answers over the whole fiasco and was keen to finally complete their claim with Jobcentre Plus once and for all.
Jobcentre Plus said that a letter from the couple had only been received on Wednesday of this week.
They confirmed that the Department for Work and Pensions and its agencies do not tolerate any for of prejudice, and any such allegations will be investigated.
A spokesperson said, “We are currently investigating the complaint as a matter of urgency as we take customer service very seriously.
We have contacted the customers to invite them to meet with the Jobcentre manager to look at all of the concerns raised.”
Jobcentre Plus is a government agency that aims to support people of working age from welfare into work, and help employers to fill their vacancies.
Source: The Courier and Advertiser (D.C. Thomson & Co. Ltd.)
09/05/2008 - Denial of UK Rights
I had the pleasure of speaking with a person from the Moss Side of
Manchester who didn't wish to be named due to his or her own litigation
case against the corrupt bodies.
Since our last update in March 2006 we have gained further evidence that
any complaint being dealt with by your MP that involves the government
ombudsman is sure to be subject to conspiracy and collaboration, I have
found through my own experience our labour MP certainly supports DWP
and Job Centre Plus corruption and that the current system gives the Chief
Executive for Job Centre Plus the power to encourage deceit, lies and fraud.
The powers that be even have authority to stop publication of corruption
stories reaching the press so that YOU the public become unaware of other
complaints involving members of the public that suffer.
The current situation that the public should focus on involves the
Government Ombudsman who I have proved to be the centre of organised
breaches concerning the public charter. I myself being a member of the
public requested information from the Ombudsman pertaining to details about a case involving the DWP that had been handled in an unethical way
as it was subject to data protection breaches and convention of human right
breaches that involved officers that had abused their powers as civil servants
and acted in an unlawful way. That created an injurious situation, this
recognised as misfeasance in the eyes of the law dictionary and the person or
persons involved in this atrocity being the transgressors. In my case the
DWP, Job Centre Plus, the government Ombudsman bodies.
I was able to recognise the above corruption in a letter between the
government ombudsman and the director for Job Centre Plus West Midlands
office. This pertaining to the names highlighted on the leaflets and posters
that have been handed out in various areas that you have observed on the
DWP corruption site address.
The names of these officers in government body positions cannot be
advertised on the website for litigation reasons. However the leaflet or
information given to you will identify the named corrupt bodies and their
DWP status, the centre of this corruption scandal is West Midlands based
( West Bromwich ). Yours may well be in another part of the country either
way any injustice experienced by you the public will have been organised by
the Chief Executive for Job Centre Plus and the DWP.
I have pasted a piece of information on the website from the Government
ombudsman to the director for Job Centre Plus that identifies collaboration
and conspiracy between the two government bodies and admittance to the
two bodies providing draft letters between each other pertaining to the reply
to be sent out the claimant or the individual who has requested the
ombudsman's assistance. The ombudsman is supposed to be an independent
party who is there to help the public. This proving that this is not the case.
The DWP have a leaflet that circulates the public called " putting things to
right". Do the DWP mean putting things right for themselves? As none of
the advice in the leaflets concerned appear to be adhered to by the DWP and
Job Centre Plus and in fact breach many of their promises.
I think this update highlights abusive power. I ask you to put this site on
your favourites list as some of the information expected to come in will give
insight to the DWP and Job Centre Plus Chief Executive's corruption and
breaches that you the public suffer and now encouraged by our non helpful
labour MPS. It is to be noted the corruption in our government department
DWP stands for "dealing with politics" who are our experts. You may
ask what is an expert? A ex is a has been and a spert is a drip under pressure.
08/05/2008 - Denial of UK Rights
The whole of the UK is being denied access to authorities required under Article 6(1) of the European Human Rights Convention. There are no such independent or impartial This remains a blatant denial of the rights of all UK citizens. authorities required under Article 6(1) of the Convention. This remains a blatant denial of the rights of all UK citizens. The UK Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II must be aware of this fact but sits on her Royal arse and allows this situation. The Judicial Oath (of fairness) sworn by all UK judges and magistrates to theUKCrownis a massive fraud and has no meaning other than attempted deception of the UK public. Queen Elizabeth II is also the Patron of the Secret Society of UK Freemasonry. The Royal family are substantial links with this cult. This is a most unhealthy situation for the UK general public. What the Hell are the Crown Members of Parliament doing about these situation? I am absolutely certain that only the UK Crown has Members of Parliament but not the UK general public. The UK is definitely not a democracy and even Crown employees now agree this fact.
I have absolutely no doubts that the UK is now ruled by a Mafia (organised crime ring) from my contacts over many years with Members of Parliament.
Crown employed criminals favoured by the Crown are being given Crown Immunity from prosecution. This is a very serious matter and will eventually be resolved, probably with bloodshed. The UK does not need a Head of State who is also the Patron of the Secret Society of Freemasonry. In these circumstances. can UK courts be held to be independent or impartial an any matters where Freemasonry has a concern. I think not. Tony Blair is a Freemason and most of us know what he got up to and probably still is. I now understand that Prime Minister by default, Gordon Brown , is also a Freemason. In fact Secret Societies such as Freemasonry are ruling and ruining the world.
Maurice Kellett http://www.masonsatwork.50megs.com http://www.mason-rule.bizhosting.com
The recorder named on this website is reputed to be a friend of the UK Crown. Perhaps this is one reason that I have never been able to obtain justice from the UK Royal employed Mafia? Despite his very substantial acts to pervert the course of justice in Durham and Newcastle County Court cases, DH400950. DH400898 and NE401650. he still remains free. Prime Minister Brown has been informed that I now lay claim to his Stately Home, near Keswick, for the damage this man has caused to me. The Chief Constable of Cumbria has been required on two occasions to have this recorder arrested for serious crime where perverting the course of justice was one of them. Cumbria Police have ignored this requirement and those responsible for this situation are held to be guilty of the crime of Misconduct in Public Office ( Regina v Dytham)
06/05/2008 - JOIN THE CAMPAIGN FOR A NEW LEASE OF LIFE
Thank you for taking the time to view our update, the information provided is to substantiate the corruption within the DWP and job centre plus and related government bodies. As manager of DWP corruption you are personally invited to join the site as a member and participate in the awareness campaign against Julia Middleton and her implemented actions within common purpose this anti-corruption site is helping people become more aware of government corruption everyday.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU?
In a nutshell you as a member of the public will learn to understand that Common Purpose will affect your family, your children, your lifestyle, your choices! If WE act now and expose common purpose and it's members, then we as the public will still have time to stop the organised corruption.
HOW TO UNDERSTAND COMMON PURPOSE AND ITS EFFECTS
Imagine common purpose as being an infiltration of cancer cells attacking your bodily organs that stems from a single cancerous mole on your body. As we al know, once cancer spreads it is too late to help, however in this case the labour government represents the cancer and the government bodies including DWP, NHS and the Police are the bodies affected.
What this means is – government infiltration to violate the publics rights and eliminate a fair hearing under 6(1) Human Rights Act.
For petition details - Click Here
22/04/2008 - Common Purpose - The New Revolution!
Download the document - Click Here
22/04/2008 - THE UK 'S CROWN MAFIA
The biggest problem for the UK is the Crown and her employees otherwise known as the Crown Mafia.
Solicitors (lawyers) barristers etc. also hold the titles as of Officers of the Courts. Herein lies a part of our problem. UK courts will never be independent or impartial just so long as the Crown influences them. Total control by the Crown employed Mafia of all of the authorities in the UK is a fact not a fiction. This control goes much deeper than most people might think. The fact that the Crown is also the Patron of the Secret Society of UK Freemasonry is not a coincidence.
The UK does not have any of the authorities required under Article 6(1) of the European Human Rights Convention. The ruling Mob may have placed the word Independent in front of some authorities but in fact they are not independent at all. This is all a part of the deception that UK people live under. Does anyone try to suggest that Queen Elizabeth II is not aware of this fact? Former Prime Minister and war criminal Tony Blair remains in receipt of my damages claim served on him a number of years ago for the damage this criminal has caused to me by denying our rights under Article 6(1). Queen Elizabeth II was served with my damages claim for her integral part in the massive Judicial Oath (of fairness) which means absolutely nothing at all, except possible as a further means to deceive the UK public. I wonder just how, any victims of the Crown there have already been in the Judicial Oath fraud like myself. Treason is indeed being used by the UK Crown against the UK general public. Further, I am quite certain that only the UK Crown has Members of Parliament but not the UK general public. This is only another way which Crown deception is being used against an unsuspecting UK public.
Many of those who become wealthy people, not by hard work, have or will continue to be given Royal titles? Wealth and how to keep to it is all a part of the UK Crown. I think that many wars in which the UK is involved is so that wealthy people in the UK and the power which goes with it, can be maintained in their positions.
Many such people have been given titles by the Patron of the UK Secret Society of Freemasonry, Queen Elizabeth II.
The UK is definitely not a democracy. I don't think it has been one for a very long time. Just so long as the UK has a Head of State who is also the Patron of UK Freemasonry, we can never be called a democracy.
What I have written here is only the tip of a very large iceberg called Crown Deception.
Maurice Kellett
Once again the document illustrate as to why you the general public should have concern with common purpose and this article is to expose the fact that the great has been taken out of Great Briton! It prove the level of corruption illustrated could be considered as mafia like behavior from our own royal family!
12/04/2008 - The NOT so Independent Tribunal - CORRUPTION!
Outcome of Mr Hossack v Information Commissioner
With Regard Humphrey Forrest the proper officer for the independent tribunal to all members of the public that read this notice this is the corrupt gentleman working on behalf of common purpose freemason alongside his corrupt counterparts Nigel Fisher solicitor for DWP and Richard Thomas the information commissioner, as you can see their actions towards me as a person looking for resolution in my complaint has been undermined as being vexatious when in reality these corrupt arseholes are part of COMMON PURPOSE The cancer that will eventually kill our country if you do not act now, if I was at all concerned the statement from Forrest would not of been put on this website and they still appear to have fear to prosecute me for their accusations of defamatory, I ask the question – Is Common Purpose and Defamatory a relative to each other? Or is it a fact that these corrupt bastards hate that word transparency?
Manager of DWP corruption
25/03/2008 - Corrupt Exposure on behalf of Government bodies
You the general public have an opportunity to become aware of government corruption exposing further evidence of common purpose, a follow through to our name and shame videos providing further evidence and exposure to malfeasance and abuse of power.
Click here to view Ian Pearson's Letter
The enclosed letter highlights Ian Pearson MP for Dudley (labour) admitting in a personal response that underhanded dealings have taken place (common purpose) but does not recognise the actions of the DWP and Job Centre Plus as being corrupt. Ian Pearson's attitude here is broad spectrum across government bodies including the ombudsman, information commissioner, law society and the DWP themselves including all departments run by Lesley Strathie, the chief executive who has replaced David Anderson. It has been established Rosemary Thew, the ex-director for job centre plus, has now infiltrated a division of the government transport department to continue common purpose training, alongside her corrupt colleagues Gwen Harrison and senior ombudsman Ann Abraham who is also infiltrating the independent tribunal service and appeals managed by a key member of common purpose Humphrey Forrest who has been put in place by the labour government to spread corruption and common purpose throughout all departments. I hope you enjoy viewing the new video highlighting the exposure and further corruption and give you, the general public, names to look out for as key members in common purpose who you should be contacting with great concern in the roles that these corrupt bastards play.
You should start by contacting your local MP and enquiring as to what areas of your local government common purpose is being practiced. You also have the opportunity to check out the names and identities of your local MP's through http://www.ukcolumn.org and check to see the level of common purpose your local MP is involved in.
25/02/2008 - My letter of response to my MP's ignorance.
With regards to the recent information pertaining to Ian Pearson, MP for Dudley South, and his involvement in Common Purpose and a scoring rate of 8/10 base upon the findings by Brian Gerrish for http://www.ukcolumn.org, the fact that Ian Pearson was an Oxford University graduate, this being the home of Common Purpose and proven facts that are directly linked to government association prove without question of a doubt that the MP's stance and what he stands for.
Further information will be provided shortly..
29/11/2007 - HM CUSTOMS INCOMPETENT STAFF
DATA PROTECTION BREACH UPDATE PERTAINING TO LOST OR STOLEN INFORMATION JUST GIVEN OUT WITHOUT A THOUGHT OF CONSEQUENCES BY HM CUSTOMS INCOMPETENT STAFF, THIS ALSO RELATES TO AN INCIDENT IN THE FORM OF MISUSE OF DATA, DUE TO DWP AND JOB CENTRE PLUS CORRUPTION! YOU THE PUBLIC NEED TO BE CONCERNED!
Here we are again a simple apology of her Majesty's government attempting to put matters right, How do they do this? By sending out 3 million letters informing families that identities, bank details etc. have gone missing and we are expected to appreciate and recognise this aspect with a little word called "sorry"......... NOT GOOD ENOUGH !
The chaos created by HM Customs has been devastating to families all over the UK, what was even more devastating in 2006, The department for Works and Pensions were subject to supplying members of the public details to strangers, this creating data protection breaches, stolen identities and as a matter of speaking causing serious devastation to peoples lives, and i can safely say that nothing has been done about this aspect. Recently on a DWP corruption visit to Sunderland highlighting the malfeasance encouraged by the DWP and their arrogant attitude towards data protection principles, I met a lady who had been devastated by the above government malpractise. Suzanne Appleby From the Houghton le spring area of sunderland highlighted that her giros from her Majesty's government (child tax credit) had been lost or stolen on numerous occasions and she was left in a position that food for her children would have been a luxury, she had experienced termination of milk tokens and felt she was victimised by the department concerned. When she complained she was told "every time you phone this office, your name goes to the bottom of the list", i guess this being due to just following through with her basic human rights to pursue her claim, this poor family experienced hardship due to government malfeasance this being practised by all government bodies at a broad spectrum level. During Suzanne's enquiries she received bank statements in the post from a Mrs Eddison from the Poweys area in one of her Majesty's blunders, she handed the bank statements back to HM Customs. My intention is to contact the individual and inform her of this dreadful aspect as it is common knowledge now that her Majesty's government have made this sort of mistake on numourous occassions. it is likely her medical records, her personal details including address have been given out to all and sundry, i believe that revelations of the 2006 blunder by the DWP and Job Centre Plus shows lessons have not been learnt in protecting data and that Richard Thomas who is employed by the data protection department and his views on staff within government bodies negotiating with criminals should be jailed as this is nothing more than organised criminal activities within government departments. I ask you now as manager of DWP corruption to consider implications of new identity proposals to be implemented by this labour government that is already on the way. I urge you to keep a close eye on the site and put it in your favourites as more information on the fraud and corruption will follow, as i myself pursue this matter personally as my expriences with the mentioned government bodies has had a dramatic effect on my life due to losses exeding £100'000.
Why not contact the site and request posters promoting www.dwpcorruption.co.uk in your area.
29/06/2007 - COUPLE HIT OUT AT JOBCENTRE “DISCRIMINATION”
10/12/2007 - DWPcorruption.co.uk's reader own stories.
Pension Credit
As Executors to my late uncle, Meyer Ostroff , we are facing a claim from DWP for all his Pension Credits - around £10,000 - because they maintain, wrongly, that he did not disclose his full assets.
Adam Afriyie , MP, is dealing with it, and I have kept the Secretary of State and my uncle's former constituency MP, George Galloway informed, but I want to spread awareness as widely as possible before any more harm is done.
I have also set copies of this to most of the MPs named below, as well as the Work and Pensions Select Committee, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. The National Audit Office has also been informed.
This is a copy of my reply to Nick Coote at Help The Aged, and extracts from his e-mail to me:-
Please note that while our case is in the competent hands of Adam Afriyie MP - of which I have informed all the below named, including: Baroness Clark of Calton and Lords: Grabiner, Newton, Oakshott and Sheikh, who I believe have interest in Pension matters, I believe the wider issue needs the most urgent attention before it does any more harm - to Pensioners, Executors and public funds, alike.
Many of us suspect that Millions - if not Billions of pounds - are being wasted here in unnecessary complexity, enquiry and recovery, when it would seem that paying Pension Credits as a standard part of the Pension, without means-testing in the first place would actually save money - let alone the time, energy and stress!
Nick ,
Many thanks for your reply.
I am convinced that we have a just case. The evidence that my uncle disclosed all material facts is printed clearly by DWP on their firs t form. If DWP failed to record them - which is crazy, as I understand they record every telephone call - we cannot take responsibility for that.
If they assert that they then fail to record these crucial material facts, as a matter of the most sensitive and profound public duty, whether a form is signed and returned or not, I call for a complete investigation at the highest levels and a dismantling and rebuilding of the entire Department.
If a subsequent form is presented - for any reason, DWP cannot afford to say that they do not hold records of earlier applications as they may - and do - contain facts that must be investigated - even if they turn out to be wrong in the first place. This is too important and costly, to the very public funds they tell us they are protecting, to be ignored.
In our case, the facts are found to be right in the first place!
Even if they only took notice of the second form, one of the accounts shown on it - and into which they actually paid his Pension/Credits - clearly displays in its statement sheets the interest and dividend payments from other main ones, which they disregarded. This is inexcusable.
DWP declare in their booklet PC1N 10/03 that they are empowered to check information for accuracy and to protect public funds and that this includes banks, lenders, government and local authority departments.
Indeed, a spokesman for Age Concern in a recent Radio 4 Today interview with John Humphrys said that Pension credit should be paid automatically - not means-tested, as DWP are perfectly well able to work out who is entitled to it and who isn't
Yesterday I attended the National Pensioners ' Convention Rally at Methodist Central Hall to support, inform and learn.
I was initially invited to address the meeting at question time, but it became clear that it was running into valuable lobbying time and everyone was dispersing to Parliament.
The speakers included MPs Kelvin Hopkins and Kate Hoey , who kindly gave me a few moments as they were leaving.
They, along with Union leaders for Postal and Public Sector/Civil Servants, and indeed the general thrust of the other speakers, stressed the evils of means-testing for Pensioners, and the fears of many more of ever getting involved in this minefield of complexity and legalistic nightmare.
In Westminster Hall I had no need to see my MP as he is dealing with my case, but appointed myself as 'roving lobbyist' and had the opportunity to speak to MPs:
- Simon Hughes, Frank Dobson, Frank Field, Michael Jabez Foster, Hugo Swire, Tim Farron, Alan Simpson, Tony McNulty's PA, and others - and of course, Kate Hoey and Kelvin Hopkins.
Several promised to put questions to the House on these issues.
I think we were all taken with the number of 'Labour' MPs we spoke to who expressed total disillusionment with their own government and agreement with the issues we presented. Alan Simpson told me that he is standing down as an MP to devote his life to Politics!
Frank Dobson seemed committed to the idea of means-testing and we gave him a hard time, which he withstood graciously. He's obviously used to it!
When he suggested that everyone should to some extent be means-tested, I asked if that should include the former Prime Minster. He appeared to ignore that while the rest of the group laughed loudly!
When I outlined our dispute to the Members, it was generally agreed that we have a just case and must pursue it.
Dear Tony ,
Thank you for your email dated 05/10/2007 regarding the DWP's attempt to recover the disputed overpayment of Pension Credit to your late uncle.
......The decision maker also has to prove that there was misrepresentation or failure to disclose, in order to show that the overpayment is recoverable.....
....It would seem that you have evidence that your uncle did disclose the relevant facts and this should form the basis of your case.
I hope this is some help.
Nick
Second Story
The examples you cite a mere peccadilloes compared with the DWP ramp by which it confiscates the annual uprating of 520,000 expatriate pensioners. I believe this policy to be endemic among the upper echelons of the DWP bureaucracy. It is significant that Gordon Browns new pensions minister, Mike O'Brien QC MP, was a signatory to three EDMs supporting our campaign for complete pensions parity, everyone no matter where resident to receive a pension pro rata to the contributions they and their employers made during a working lifetime.
But as soon as he took up his portfolio and was exposed to the top DWP functionaries, he too has toed the discriminatory line which freezes the pensions of half the expatriates at the amount in force when they first qualified or emigrated as existing pensioners. Their pension remains fixed for all time, so that, as the cost of living inexorably rises with each passing year, the gap increases between the amount needed to maintain a minimum living standard and what these frozen pensioners are actually paid. This is indirect age discrimination.
The letter I recently wrote to a supportive MP, junior Minister Don Touhig , tells the story:
You kindly forwarded copy of the letter signed by Secretary of State Peter Hain which is a clear tribute to the influence you exert, but you must share my disappointment that he did not respond to any of my points about indirect age discrimination. The letter was doubtless drafted by DWP mandarins since it churned out the usual boiler plate with its legalistic mantra about only obeying EU directives (where Britain has no choice) and honouring reciprocal agreements, which is a grandiose term for the countries selected arbitrarily by Britain to benefit from uprating (chosen with total lack of logic, former Pensions Minister Jeff Rooker confessed). What they are in effect saying is we have the power to confiscate your uprating and you cannot prevent us with not a single argument in logic or ethics to justify the discrimination. More particularly, they choose to ignore what was promised under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).
At its coming into force on 2 October 2000, HRA was the responsibility of the Home Office. The then Home Secretary Jack Straw summarised the intent of the new Act in a much-quoted speech [see Straw, J. (2000) Human Rights and Personal Responsibility New Citizenship for a New Millennium, speech given in St Pauls Cathedral, London , 2 October 2000.London: Lord Chancellor Department.
http://www.humanrights.gov.uk/sp021000.htm] when he said:
The Government aim is to build a modern civil society based on basic values of individual worth and equality of opportunity for all. Those values are directly reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights, which through the Human Rights Act, is now in our system of law. Basic values we can all share. . under the Human Rights Act, everyone gets the same set of basic guarantees from our public services, whoever we are and wherever we live.
However, the principal source of the government legislative intent is the Study Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). In its preface, written jointly by the then Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales Lord Brennan QC, it further states what HRA is intended to achieve:
The Human Rights Act . . . marks a change in the constitutional relationship between citizens and the state. . . makes rights from the European Convention on Human Rights into a form of higher law in the United Kingdom . . . now all state bodies, including the courts . . . must act in accordance with the Convention rights when making decisions which affect you. If they interfere with these rights, they will have to be able to justify that interference in accordance with the new law.
Any rational pers on would conclude from the foregoing that, where two acts are in conflict, HRA has precedence over domestic law. In a letter to the Daily Telegraph 12 August 2005, former Master of the Rolls, the late Lord Donaldson, in a minimal interpretation, wrote: By the Human Rights Act 1998, [Parliament] has not only authorised but required the judges to form and express a view on whether any other Act is compatible with that Act.
Despite Mr Hain claiming all [the domestic courts] found in favor of the Government, in hearing an application for judicial review of the pensions freezing policy, the judiciary at every level evaded that responsibility, ignoring Lord Donaldson 's maxim and insisting that the issue must be returned to Parliament for resolution, thereby frustrating the stated government intent. If you are not familiar with the Study Guide, first edition (later editions have omitted the Straw commitments), could you please take a few minutes to read the attachment HRA Policy Declarations.
Successive Lord Chancellors made no attempt to implement the Straw undertaking. Now, in the new Gordon Brown administration, Jack Straw has himself the task of implementing HRA after being appointed Lord Chancellor. In the Telegraph 26/10/2007 he writes: To enjoy the benefits of a liberal democracy we must adhere to the letter and the spirit of human rights. The letter and the spirits of HRA are contained in the Straw launch speech and the Study Guide. To deny them would be to invite the charge that Labour does not honour its commitments.
Mr Hain was again slyly briefed by his mandarins into feigned innocence when he writes: Any surplus between receipts and payments into the NIF is invested in gilts as though the huge current balance were there by chance or at the behest of the Government Actuary. The latter has emailed:
The Government Actuary ( Mr Daykin ) has asked me to reply to your query. Our recommendation of a minimum balance in the National Insurance Fund of one-sixth of annual expenditure remains unchanged. In this respect, I refer you to paragraph 8.1 of our recent report on the 2007 up-rating (Cm 7021), a copy of which you will find on our website. The actual level of the surplus in the Fund is the responsibility of Ministers and not of GAD.
Please glance at the table in the second attachment, to which I wrote a comment:
The bland response claiming operation within the Government's fiscal rules and investing any surplus to help fund public services is pure spin. The Government Actuary and the National Audit Office confirm they have not changed their recommendation that the NIF should hold a prudent surplus of around 16%, say 8bn; the current surplus is some 40bn, forecast to double in the next five years. Contributions by workers and their employers insure against sickness and unemployment but primarily they purchase the retirement pension. Setting an excessively high level of contributions to fund public services when the money could easily be raised by selling gilts in the open market is a misuse of power; it is a stealth tax. All pensioners have paid the same level of contributions; confiscating the uprating entitlement of just half the expatriates is institutionalised larceny. Given the huge NIF surplus, to suggest paying frozen pensioners their fair dues would harm the economy is ludicrous.
The NIF surplus grew by Billion in 05-06 and will have added a similar or greater amount in 06-07. The 400m it would cost to achieve total pensions parity a huge amount for the average man “ is miniscule in these days of billion pound budgets. If it is not there to borrow from the NIF, the Treasury can sell gilts for that tiny amount in the open market where a recent offer was heavily overs ubscribed.
Surprisingly Mr Hain is out of date on the NIF investment strategy. It was changed in January 2007 when all the gilt holdings were sold and the proceeds placed into Call Notice Deposits with the Debt Management Account Deposit Facility (DMADF) where they are expected to earn a rate of interest closely related to the Bank of England Official Rate. At 31st March 2007 the balances held were: GB NIF - £38,815.6 million; NI NIF - £1,085.2 million. In fact it makes little difference, whether gilts or Call Notice Deposits - the interest earned on the current balance is 2.5 times what it would cost if the Government were to desist from confiscating our uprating.
Mr Touhig , I apologise for writing at such length but in seventeen years of campaigning, I have not learned how to respond to the Government sophisticated spin-machine with a few brief comments. At 81 I have no prospect of benefiting from the Government eventual change of heart. I continue fighting only out of embarrassment that the land of my birth should uniquely among civilised nations prosecute such an inequitable policy.
Please help us win the battle.
* end of message to Don Touhig *
Also relevant is a request addressed to three members of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee on 27/11/07, the day it was to interrogate top DWP officials:
Would you please put the following questions to Phil Wynn Owen , Director General for Strategy and Pensions, and Richard Heaton , Director General of the Law, Governance and Special Policy Group of the Department for Works and Pensions in the 4.30pm session today.
They are in respect of the annual regulations which perpetuate the policy of fully uprating the pensions of half the expatriates while confiscating the uprating of the other half (more than 500,000 pensioners) such that their pensions remain frozen for all time.
Please have the DWP officials explain why a pensioner resident in the USA is paid a fully uprated pension while I, with the same full contribution record but resident in Australia , am denied annual uprating. Do not accept any explanation that there is a reciprocal agreement providing for pensions uprating with the USA but not with Australia . That is merely the mechanism for applying the discrimination. The inequity must be explained in morality and logic.
Please ask the DWP representatives to explain why there has been no DWP reaction to complaints by individual pensioners of serious maladministration in the compilation of the relative Statutory Instrument (in the current year SI 2007 No. 775). Ministers appear unwilling to make changes which would expose Regulation 3 to the possibility of a Parliamentary prayer to annul the Regulation. In particular they should comment on the Early Day Motion 1203 22 March 2007 tabled by Peter Bottomley MP :
That this House asks the Social Security Advisory Committee to consider Statutory Instrument 2007 No. 775, the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2007; calls on the Government to provide a remedy to the unjustified and unjustifiable discrimination against the 50 per cent. of overseas UK state pensioners in certain countries including Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand; and requires the Government to present any future Instrument, Regulation or Order that purports to continue the application of disqualification in respect of inflation or other uprating of benefit as an independent Instrument, Regulation or Order instead of tucking it away in Clause 3 of a Regulation misleadingly titled Uprating.
The objective, which your Committee must surely support, is to establish that:
The rules governing the compilation of Statutory Instruments shall be amended to prevent any Regulation having a marked adverse effect on a large number of people being shielded by other Regulations with implied uprating effect. The adverse effect Regulation should appear as the sole item, thereby permitting the Parliament with clear conscience to exercise its right to pray its annulment.
* end of message to members of Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee *
This vindictive policy, which is unique to the UK , must be routed out as the first step in cleaning up the Department of Work and Pensions.
Yours truly,
Brian Havard 81 year-old WWII Veteran Frozen Pensioner
29/06/2007 - News Update
We apologise to our readers and supporters in that from the period 12 to 29 June 2007 the website was unavailable. It appears this setback was due to instructions by one Nigel Fisher of the DWP his claiming the site to be “vexatious”.
Shame on you Nigel!
The site exists to provide what is known as “fair comment” on matters of “public interest”, namely the misconduct of persons in public office.
Mr Fisher therefore becomes the first to be “Named and Shamed” by us.
Unfortunately we have lost a considerable amount of Data by the action, the site therefore requiring to undergo very considerable reconstruction, at our own expense, which will take time. Such is the nature of injury.
It is now some months since Field Fisher and Waterhouse (Solicitors) were employed by the DWP to both waste and abuse the resources of the UK taxpayer to threaten and intimidate our host.
Unfazed and disinterested by the threat, the DWP then turned their attention to our old hosting provider. Sadly they buckled under DWP intimidation and terminated the contract - the site “Forbidden” according to them.
We fully understand the pressure they felt and the fear of litigation we too have experienced, however these intimidation tactics is what invites the campaign: To stand up to unlawful bullying by a minority, employed within the British government!
Anytime they want to apologise, they are welcome but successfully bullied, they seemingly don't want to have anything more to do with the site and have refused to return our intellectual property.
We hold no hard feelings but acknowledge they too now know how it feels to be bruised by the DWP.
We have subsequently learned the DWP interpret fair comment, free speech and complaint as defamation. The mere threat of exposing corruption and illegality within the DWP and its overseeing bodies is in their mind somehow illegal.
How far this government has moved us from a previously free country based upon democracy toward a totalitarian regime is frightening. As its weakest victims we know it only too well.
Our new server is with 123-reg.co.uk. We trust they are more robust than our previous contractor.
I can, as manager of the site, clarify that no proceedings have been made against me contrary to my requests that the department provide me with reasons why they should wish to do so.
I conclude with the suggestion that to criticise or disagree with the government is likely at this pace; to become a criminal offence requiring state sponsored litigation or worse. At what point then would the victims of government injustice have to start breaking the law as they repeatedly do?
Our problem; the DWP is seemingly immune from illegal behaviour . They want to see to it the public are prosecuted for objecting to illegality by staff with the DWP and its overseeing bodies.
I will however continue to press to see to it the officer who breached the Data Protection Act and gave out my details to a third party has his case heard in court, it being for the court to determine whether such was “inadvertent” or not. The existing practice of self-policing simply demonstrates it's ineffectiveness exposing the internal practice of lies and whitewash.
As you can read elsewhere in the site how the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas wants DWP misconduct of this sort made punishable not just by a fine but by imprisonment!
10/04/2007 - STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner has taken the trouble to put his findings regarding my case (fs50125496) online and in doing so advertises the website.
I take the view Mr Thomas demonstrates inadequacies for the general handling of Information, amounting to bias:
VEXATION
While he acknowledges there has been a breach of the Data Protection Act affecting me directly as a member of the public, he takes the view that for me to complain is vexatious.
Since when did objecting to having one's rights in law violated by the state constitute vexation?
He offers no remedy and the civil servants engaged in this unlawful activity escape any disciplinary action, my being offered no redress.
Violation of my rights has had a dramatic affect upon my life and that of my family affecting my children, ruining my marriage leaving me with a five-year battle with the government, members of the civil service lying and withholding information in an attempt to conceal ongoing malfeasance intended to injure me as an individual.
COMPENSATION
His findings imply I seek a £15,000 payoff from the public purse for my trouble however this figure represents only the legal costs I have incurred in seeking to remedy my injury, using the internal process, my having no previous expertise in the area of legislation the DWP and its associated bodies hide behind. The fact the Information Commissioner fails to mention this is in my opinion evidence he is part of a conspiracy to protect the state from the public (rather than the public from the state) with a view to leading us up the garden path and whitewash government mal administration.
MY BEST ADVICE
As of April 2007 the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) can examine a complaint against any part of the DWP whereby previously he could only consider matters affecting the Child Support Agency now the Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission.
Although we have no information on the ICE to date I strongly advise anyone dissatisfied with DWP misconduct consider that avenue long before getting involved with the Ombudsman my experience being this is merely a waste disposal unit for the government as once you have involved them your remedies are now limited to direct legal action or as in my case campaigning for reform.
02/04/2007 - Help Yourself by Helping Us!
After reading the cases on www.dwpcorruption.co.uk you will have become aware of the huge LABOUR government corruption with civil servants in many government departments including the D.W.P, Jobcentre PLUS, Government Ombudsman and many more.. that are working as one team in silence of conspiracy, this act of malfeasance (ABUSE OF POWER) effects YOU and YOUR families rights!
You have an opportunity to be heard and with the run up to the General Elections, by spreading the word of the Labour Government CORRUPTION we can show the power that be that the general public does have a voice and it will be herd! You can help yourself and other by helping us spread the word about the actions of these government bodies, please contact us via the contact us page and we can organise to send you our new campaign posters for you to distribute around your local area! Together our voices will be heard!
We also invite all of the MP's to contact us with your comments or to explain from their own point of view the actions of the government workers and official with the cases listed on www.dwpcorruption.co.uk.
Our campaign is growing stronger by the day with people coming forward and contacting us with comments of support and questions for advice. The further we can spread the word about The Campaign Against DWP Corruption the more power we have to stand up to the government with so contact us today to receive directions about how you can help.
Have your case study put on our website - click here and send us details of your case and we will add it to our website to show the public just how much corruption and deception is going on within the system.
