I Joined The Underclass

Some Ten Years Ago, I Joined The Underclass - The Time Is Coming To Report The Reality.

Nigel

Request To The Information Commissioner's Office, Regarding Universal Jobmatch Privacy Issues

"WP/UJ/Cookies

Nigel Oldfield, 7 Mar, to casework, casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer you to my previous communication:

*****

Nigel Oldfield 24/12/2012

Dear Sir or Madam,

As you may be aware, the DWP appears to be on the verge of making access to The Universal Jobmatch system, mandatory, for those claiming certain benefits.

The system uses multiple cookies, from the DWP/Monster, so as to monitor claimants' activities, whenever it will choose to do so.

It appears, that the suggested mandatory nature, can only require, that these cookies be accepted and maintained; to not do so, will lead to sanctions and loss of benefits.

For personal, security, reasons, I clean my PC, at regular intervals. I am sure you will recognise, how these conflicting issues will be a problem, in the future, for many users.

Have you (or others) done any preliminary work, with the DWP (or others), on the legality and ramifications, of this issue?

I look forward to your reply.

Yours,

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield"

Reply

"Response from the Information Commissioner's Office[Ref. ENQ*******]

casework@ico.org.uk, 14:38 (1 hour ago), to me, PROTECT, 28 March 2013

Case Reference Number ENQ*******

Dear Dr Oldfield

We are now in a position to provide you with a response to your enquiry regarding the DWP’s Universal Jobmatch system and we apologise for the length of time it has taken to respond to you.

Following a number of enquiries/complaints which we received regarding the DWP and the new Universal Jobmatch service, our Strategic Liaison department contacted the DWP to raise concerns about the new online service, particularly in relation to the quality of information about the service, security of the site and contradictory messages about whether it was mandatory or not. We also highlighted to the DWP people’s concerns about the wording of the terms and conditions, particularly the disclaimers about who could access people’s information, and the lack of clarity about who was the data controller for the online service.

Organisations that process personal information are required to do so in accordance with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The first data protection principle states that personal data shall be processed ‘fairly and lawfully’ and a key element of fairness is ensuring people know who is processing their information and how it will be used. We raised our concerns with the DWP and advised that they should review the information they were providing to ensure it complied with the DPA requirements and we recommended that privacy notices should be visible, easy to access and written in a way that could be easily understood by their client group. We also advised of the lack of clarity about which organisation was responsible for the personal data on the Universal Jobmatch online service.

DWP confirmed that the Universal Jobmatch site is a separate, bespoke job search site created for DWP by Monster. It also confirmed that security safeguards had been built into the site but accepted that the disclaimers in the terms and conditions made it appear that this was not the case. DWP informed us that the site was secure and they would look again at the privacy notice and terms and conditions to ensure these complied with the DPA.

In response to contradictory information about whether the service was compulsory or not, DWP confirmed on 28 February that Jobseeker Allowance claimants could be required to use the Universal Jobmatch service from 1 March 2013, and that this could well be mandatory.

It would appear that to a large extent the enquiries/complaints we have received mainly resulted from unclear information provided through either their websites or staff. We now understand after consulting with the DWP that they have revised the privacy policy, provided additional guidance to advisers, produced leaflets and used easier to understand information about the scheme. We also understand that the terms and conditions have been replaced by a webpage on ‘standards of behaviour for jobseekers’ (see link below). DWP has also assured us that they have taken additional steps to guard against bogus employers, including increased checks on employer and vacancy details.

https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/register.aspx?redirect=http%3a%2f%2fjobsearch.direct.gov.uk%2fhome.aspx

Moving forward from this point

If you now have any further concerns in relation to the Universal Jobmatch process, its implementation or the DWP services then you will need to raise these directly with the DWP. It is not within our remit to comment on how this process works or the fact that this has now become a mandatory process.

If you wish to raise concerns with the DWP you can access information about their complaint process through this link - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/contact-us/complaints-and-appeals/

We are satisfied that the DWP have taken on board the nature of the complaints and enquiries we have received in relation to Universal Jobmatch and matters of concern with the DPA and that they have put the necessary steps in place to comply with the DPA.

Therefore, if you have specific concerns in relation to your personal data and compliance with the DPA, then in the first instance you would need to raise this in writing with the DWP to give them the opportunity to look into your concerns and respond to you.

If after doing this you are not satisfied with their response you may be able to raise this as a complaint with our office, for further information on this process please helpline on 0303 123 1113 to discuss your concerns.

I appreciate that this information may not address all your concerns but hope this satisfies the DPA element for which our office regulates. If you wish to know more about the DPA please see our website www.ico.org.uk Yours sincerely

Thomas Booker
Case Officer - First Contact Group
Information Commissioner’s Office
Direct dial number - 01625 545552
____________________________________________________________________

The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.

Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you not to email any information, which if disclosed to unrelated third parties would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature please provide a postal address to allow us to communicate with you in a more secure way. If you want us to respond by email you must realise that there can be no guarantee of privacy.

Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the Information Commissioner's Office for reasons of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking software may also be used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to ensure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law.

The Information Commissioner's Office cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks. __________________________________________________________________

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.org.uk"

*****

Universal Jobmatch website – Standards of Behaviour for Jobseekers (DWP)

Universal Jobmatch website – Standards of Behaviour for Jobseekers (DWP)

*****

Nigel

Some Problemo

CRB Problems Ltd

"Have you ever been unable to find work or have lost a job opportunity due to information on your CRB report?

CRB Problems Ltd specialises in Applications to review Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) reports.

WE ARE HERE TO HELP

OUR INITIAL ADVICE IS FREE AND COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL"

*****

No connection or endorsement, just for readers' information.

Nigel.

You Can Run ...

18th February 2013

Delays to reforms to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

"We're disappointed to announce that this morning we've received notification from the Government that the changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, due to come into force in Spring 2013, have been delayed. The Ministry of Justice provided us with the following:

"As you know, the commencement of the reforms are dependent on the necessary system changes being in place so that basic disclosure certificates for England and Wales will reflect the new rehabilitation periods. We had been aiming to commence the reforms by April 2013, however, it will not be possible to achieve the necessary system changes by that date and we are now looking at commencement in November.""

Nigel

The Naziesque JSAg Is Here - The Universal Credit Claimant Commitment - A Document Which Compels You To Lie, If You Wish To Live

Posted on February 15, 2013 

Under Universal Credit (UC), Jobsearch (work search) commitments can be up to 35 hours per week, specimen UC Comittment forms and associated documents below:

“My work search and preparation plan I’ll spend 35 hours each week looking and preparing for work. This will include all the activities and actions in this plan.”
From: AWRJoanneBrownAnnex1.docm

Documents:

I. The Universal Credit Claimant Commitment. 8 p.
II. Universal credit claimant commitment: worked examples of the claimant commitment. 4 docs.
III. Earned income – self employed earnings. 24 p.
IV. Permitted expenses: conditions for deducting permitted expenses. 8 p.

http://consent.me.uk/2013/02/15/thirtyfive/ 

Claimant Commitment

*****

TOPIC: New 35 hour per week Job Search commitments confirmed (UM)

*****

Nigel

Reilly Good News

Tuesday 12 February 2013 

Taxpayers 'facing multi-million-pound compensation bill' as judges rule back-to-work schemes are unlawful in Poundland test case

"Cait Reilly has won her Court of Appeal claim that requiring her to work for free at a Poundland discount store was unlawful,

She and unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, both succeeded in their claims, in the legal aid funded case,

The ruling will not affect the schemes’ existence but will mean the way in which they are written and enforced will need to change,

Lawyers say today's ruling could mean those whose benefits were stripped for refusing part in back-to-work schemes could now reclaim them,

But DWP say it is 'adamant there are no grounds for repayment'."

Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 66

Court of Appeal Rules that the Government’s “Back to Work” Regulations are Unlawful and Must Be Quashed
 
Back-to-work scheme ruling explained
 
This Poundland ruling is a welcome blow to the Work Programme

Landmark workfare ruling, “govt acted unlawfully #workfare is quashed”

Graduate wins court fight that 'slave labour' at Poundland was unlawful
 
Back-to-work scheme breached laws, says Court of Appeal

Poundland ruling: Back-to-work schemes in disarray as no-pay placements judged unlawful
 
Poundland ruling 'blows big hole' through government work schemes

"Back-to-work scheme breached laws"

Government training scheme unlawful
 
Poundland ‘breached forced labour laws’
 
Graduate’s Poundland victory leaves government work schemes in tatters
 
Court of Appeal will this morning rule whether ConDem employment schemes constitute forced labour
 
Back to work schemes quashed in huge victory for ordinary people
 
Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson: Court Rules Workfare Unlawful.
 
Public Interest Lawyers Limited: Court of Appeal Rules that the Government’s “Back to Work” Regulations are Unlawful and Must Be Quashed
 
Back-to-work ruling 'undermines welfare reform'

Small Victories

Court of Appeal Rules “Back to Work” Regulations Unlawful And Must Be Quashed
 
Workfare Is Broken! New Court Ruling and Charity Exodus Are Death Knell For Forced Labour!
 
Unpaid work scheme is illegal, says court - with comment
 
Did you turn down Workfare and lose benefits? Claim them back now!

Poundland Made Me Feel Like I Was Free Labour, Says Cait Reilly – Video
 
DWP Response To Todays #Workfare Judgement

Back-to-work scheme regulations unlawful, not schemes themselves, says expert 

What was the real reason for the work experience decision?

In praise of … Cait Reilly
 
Politics and the Poundland ruling
 
The Poundland Principle: The Only Thing To Gain From Unskilled Labour Is A Wage
 
Nigel

Did You Speak?

Yellow Triangle - Christy Moore

Nigel

Assured

13 November 2012 – Providers announced for online identity scheme (DWP)

"The Post Office, Cassidian, Digidentity, Experian, Ingeus, Mydex, and Verizon are the successful providers chosen to design and deliver a secure online identity registration service for the Department for Work and Pensions. The identity registration service will enable benefit claimants to choose who will validate their identity by automatically checking their authenticity with the provider before processing online benefit claims." "

Identity assurance – Stepping Up A Gear

Nigel 

Little Nuremberg

January 2, 2013 9:54 pm

Obese benefit claimants face heavy threat

"“Where an exercise package is prescribed to a resident, housing and council tax benefit payments could be varied to reward or incentivise residents,” it says."

Martin Rowson on possible benefit cuts for obese people – cartoon

Nigel

I'm Nearly Spent

December 2012

Is it spent now?

1. Introduction

"This guide explains the changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) which the Government has made through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). It does not explain how the current ROA works (that is covered on our Information Hub and will be updated once the changes come into force)."

'Is it spent now?' - New brief guide on changes to the ROA (Unlock Forum)

*****

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 - Explanatory Notes - Chapter 8: Rehabilitation of offenders

"48. Chapter 8 contains a package of changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (“the ROA”) to amend the scope of the Act and its rehabilitation periods. The amendments extend the scope of the ROA so that custodial sentences of up to and including 4 years in length can become ‘spent’. The times at which different convictions become ‘spent’ are also amended, and in most cases the rehabilitation periods are reduced. Where a caution or conviction has become spent, the offender is treated as rehabilitated in respect of that offence and is not obliged to declare it for most purposes, for example, when applying for employment or insurance."

CHAPTER 8: Rehabilitation of offenders

*****

Orders 

Additions coming.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provisions) Order 2012  (2906)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Consequential and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2012  (2824)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Children Act 1989) (Children Remanded to Youth Detention Accommodation) Regulations 2012 (2813)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 3 and Saving Provision) Order 2012 (2770)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 2 and Specification of Commencement Date) Order 2012 -18th September 2012 (2412)

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2012 - 24th July 2012 (1956)

*****

Regarding 'drag through'/further convictions ...

'Then' (pre-LASPO 2012) ...

Further Convictions 

"Further convictions

 If a rehabilitation period is still running and the offender commits a ‘summary’ offence, a minor offence that can only be tried in a magistrates’ court, the minor offence will not affect the rehabilitation period for the other offence; each offence will expire separately."

What is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974?

"What happens if I get another caution or conviction before my first conviction becomes spent?

If you already have an unspent conviction (not including unspent conditional cautions), and you get a further caution or conviction before the earlier conviction has become spent, one of the following will apply:

1. If your later outcome is a caution (either a simple caution or a conditional caution), reprimand or warning, neither rehabilitation period will be affected. The caution or conviction for the earlier offence will become spent at the time originally fixed, and the caution for the later offence will become spent after the normal period (immediately for a simple caution or three months for a conditional caution).

2. If your later outcome is a conviction for a summary offence, (one that can only be tried in a magistrates’ court), neither rehabilitation period will be affected. The caution or conviction for the earlier offence will become spent at the time originally fixed, and the conviction for the later offence will become spent after the normal period.

3. If your later outcome is a conviction for an either way or an indictable offence (one which could be tried in the Crown Court) then neither conviction will become spent until the rehabilitation period for both offences are over.

4. If your later outcome is a conviction that results in a prison sentence of more than 2 ½ years then neither the second nor the first conviction will ever become spent.

Once a conviction becomes spent, it remains spent, even if a person is convicted of other offences later."

'Now' (post-LASPO 2012) ...

3.4 Increasing Some Rehabilitation Periods

"a) Further convictions 

Currently, the rehabilitation periods for further convictions for summary offences run separately from other unspent convictions. However, further triable either-way and indictable offences ‘drag through’ existing unspent convictions, extending their rehabilitation period until the last one is spent. Following the changes, all offences will create this ‘drag through’ effect, including summary."

Nigel

A Little Preparation - WP05 (Start Notification Letter), Sanctions And Law

Versions and release dates for Work Program WP05 (FOIR)

"I hope you share my concerns about the effect unsatisfactory replies and dubious reviews such as these may have on the reputation of the DWP. I also hope that with a view to minimising any tendency to increased cynicism and mistrust you can clarify what occurred on this occasion."

The Most Recent (09/11 v 3)? - published on 30 September for use in Jobcentres from 3 October 2011

"You must complete any activities that [insert name of Provider], or one of their partners, tells you to do"

*****

Part 1 DWP

"Please Note: The below information is provided "as is" freely on the internet expressing an idea.There is no warranty that it is correct or the extent of its effectiveness. There is no guarantee that it will work or that such persons will be exempt from benefit sanctions for such refusal. It might help you, it might not. It could inspire you into a better letter. It is expected that a person wanting to Refuse the Work Programme has a genuine objection that is sincere."

*****

WP05 : Work Programme notification letter, SEETEC

"Below we have a copy of the notification letter to an unemployed person already in receipt of the Jobseekers Allowance. The manner of the letter is the first point of contention, it is a clear document of orders, the second comes in the offer of contract and its rules, specifically the terms by which the receiver of the offer of contract must obey all commands coming from the outsource provider, Seetec, quote :

“You must complete any activities that SEETEC tells you to do”"

"Your Terms

First you must understand that for contract law to support your actions you need to ensure your terms are of a reasonable nature, example: keeping terms in accordance with your employment history and your abilities, as such you need to consider your position in these terms:

pay
conditions
timetable
benefits
your human rights

So let us say you, in general, worked in an office, that this should be seen as your career choice as a whole, that after your consideration of the offer you will present your terms in relation to acceptance in accordance that should you accept the offer, (subject to consideration) the offers of employment would fall within your skill base, and that you would expect a similar rate of pay as that deserving of your qualities. (you would have to present an acceptable rate of pay acceptable to you as part of your terms)

You would then want to clarify the term; “You must complete any activities that SEETEC tells you to do”, because it is so open ended, you would in theory lose benefit payments should you refuse to kill your next door neighbour if a member of SEETEC demanded such of you. Such clarification even in law, would not be seen as an unreasonable request, so you would open negotiation in order the boundaries of such a term, especially as consent is being sought under contractual obligation for which sanctions would have been consented to be used as a tool of enforcement, to be set and then accepted to the agreement of both parties."

WP Start letter 23 Oct 2012 21:35

"People mandated to the WP have to be issued with a letter which cites the correct regulations enabling the mandation. The letter that should be used is coded WP05. The original version of this letter dod not cite the regulations. The DWP altered the WP05 without giving it a new version number (sneaky!). Some people were also incorrectly mandated by use of other letters (e.g. WP02 which also does not contain the required wording). There have already been instances - some documented on this site! - of successful challenges to the WP mandation (see posts from Bryan). In these instances the person has checked which letter they received and whether it was the correct version. This can be done by a Subject Access Request if original not available. WHERE the original mandation has been done incorrectly complaints have been made - and upheld. The result being withdrawal from the WP and reinstatement of normal signing on procedures at JCP."

*****

[2012] EWHC 2292 (Admin) and revised standard letters (FOIR)

"In The Queen (on the application of) Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgme... ruling it highlighted DWP letters warning of potential sanctions are unlawful. Today you said "We do not believe there is anything wrong with the original letters and we will appeal this aspect of the judgement, but in the meantime we have revised our standard letters.""

The Queen (on the application of) Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Reilly - CO/260/2012 and Wilson - CO/1087/2012

Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 2292 (Admin)

*****

The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011

JSA SANCTIONS FROM 22.10.12 - Memo DMG 37/12 (DWP)

Changes to Jobseeker’s Allowance sanctions from 22 October 2012 (DWP)

DMG Chapter 34 - Sanctions (DWP)

DMG Chapter 35 - Hardship (DWP)

Work Programme Provider Guidance (DWP)

*****

Friday 1 April 2011 19.46 BST

Jobcentres 'tricking' people out of benefits to cut costs, says whistleblower

"Soaring number of sanctions against unemployed amid claims that DWP staff are being told to trip people up with paperwork."

Posted on February 19, 2012

Chris Grayling is a Lying Bastard
Critics of Government work experience programme are 'jobs snobs', says minister
Stalin Would Blush at this Government’s Workfare Tantrum
DWP Rewrite History – Mandatory Work Disappears from the Work Programme Provider’s Guidance

"That an over-privileged Oxbridge twat like Chris Grayling can accuse benefit claimants of being snobs for objecting to forced labour shows how pitifully out of touch this government are.

Grayling, clearly rattled about the ongoing disintegration of the government’s welfare policy, has unleashed a torrent of lies in the Telegraph this morning.

Perhaps the most brazen is the quote: “We won’t and don’t force anyone to take a work experience placement. Where we use mandation in our welfare policies, it will be to do useful work on community projects. We will never mandate anyone to work for a big company. They wouldn’t take them if we did.“

Just one of several new workfare schemes is called the ‘Mandatory Work Programme’ (the clue’s in the name). Under this scheme, which Job Centre advisors can re-refer people onto indefinitely, claimants will be expected to work 30 hours a week, for four weeks per referral, or face benefit sanctions of three months. If they leave and then return to the placement the sanction will still remain in force. Where claimants end up working will be down to providers, almost all of whom are private sector poverty pimps. Claimants could be referred to private companies or charities alike. Whilst it is true that on this scheme the DWP has stipulated that placements should have some community benefit, one of those benefits is astonishingly ‘working towards the profit of the host organisation’."

Nigel

Rich, From A Tory

7:05PM GMT 18 Dec 2012

'Ban benefits claimants from spending on drink and cigarettes'

"Benefits claimants should be banned from spending welfare payments on “luxury” items like alcohol, cigarettes and satellite television, a Government aide has said.

Strain: the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is masterminding welfare reforms

Alec Shelbrooke said that claimants should be paid welfare via electronic cash cards that could only be used to buy essentials like food, clothing, energy, travel and housing.

Mr Shelbrooke, a Conservative MP, is a parliamentary private secretary at the Northern Ireland Office,

He made the suggestion as a backbencher in the House of Commons, but ministers are understood to be looking at similar ideas.

Mr Shelbrooke has drafted a Bill that would change the law to allow welfare payments to be made on a new “welfare cash card” whose use could be restricted by the Government."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9754188/120000-troubled-families-could-be-legally-banned-from-spending-benefits-on-alochol-and-tobacco.html

MP: Ban benefit claimants from buying alcohol

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9779000/9779292.stm

No beer on benefits: Tory MP wants those on benefits banned from buying "unnecessary items" 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-mp-alec-shelbrooke-wants-1496523

We won't dish out benefits: Tories declares war on claimants by studying plans for welfare card

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/government-studying-welfare-card-plans-1499584

Alec introduces the Welfare Cash Card

http://www.alecshelbrooke.co.uk/index.php/home

Welfare cash card

http://blueconservative.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/welfare-cash-card-2/ 

*****

I contacted Mr Shelbrooke ...

Subject: Your Dangerous Madness

Dear Sir,

I will try to be brief, as I do not believe your offensive ideas warrant much effort.

JSA is deemed "the minimum amount one can live on".

Living is more than survival.

Many of us are likely to be on JSA (or equivalent), for the remainder of our 'working' lives.

Imagine a life, with no hope for anything other than state-sanctioned commodities.

Can you imagine that?

Does it ring a bell?

Is that the kind of country you believe in?

Yours,

NLO
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk
(and, no, I do not 'drink' or smoke)

*****

Friday 21 December 2012 12.57 GMT

Welfare cash cards and spying: the Tory approach to unemployment

"An MP's proposal to stop claimants buying 'luxury goods' would fit with a new website that tracks job search activities."

January 14, 2013

Alec Shelbrooke: The need to reverse Labour’s destruction of the Welfare State is greater than ever

"This is a plea to the reader – it is not in my character, nor ever the intention of my Bill to play one section of society off against another. To suggest otherwise is not only false but damaging and disrespectful to the 5.8m recipients of DWP benefits who believe in the integral importance of the Welfare State."

Nigel

A Letter To The Home Office (Part 2)

Not yet sent, being proof-read. Recent additions in sand.

*****

To: The Rt Hon Theresa May MP

xx/12/2012

Dear Ms May,

I wish to survey your thoughts, and the official position and intention of the Ministry/Government, on the following issues:


**********

Issue 1

R v Wiles (2004): Ramifications For Police Forces And Those Who Are Required To Register, Under The Sexual Offences Act 2003

I am sure that you are aware of this document (www.unlock.org.uk/userfiles/file/IAG/SORExtendedSentence.pdf).

The main thrust, of the implications of Wiles, is understood, if not agreed upon..

I request clarification, of the following passage, and how it should impact, consistently, on all police forces, in regards to them relinquishing people from (or maintaining them within), notification requirements:

"... to make sure that they have applied the effects of this judgement from at least 1 April 2005."

Please provide a more extended explanation, of what this passage is meant to convey, and, in particular, the nature of the phrase 'at least' and:

e.g. does it mean, that Wiles is retrospective, based on sentencing, prior to Wiles and/or 1/4/2005?

e.g. does it mean, that the requirement to notify, is retrospective, based on sentencing, before 1/4/2005, in light of Wiles?

If the answer to either of these question is "yes", what does the government intend to do, so as to rectify this situation, by legislation (I am sure that you are aware, that the whole construct, of the 'Extended Sentence'; was different, prior to that date and, in fact, earlier to it, than to what it is now).

If your answer, in terms of intention, is "nothing", why not?

On R v Wiles
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/on-r-v-wiles.html

A Letter To The Home Office (Part 1) 
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/on-r-v-wiles-letter-to-home-office-part.html

What Is 'Imprisonment'? 
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/76-meaning-of-custodial-sentence.html 

Sexual Offences Act 2003
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2


**********

Issue 2:

Re-Balancing The Notification Periods: In Light Of The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

I am sure, that any reasonable person would agree with me, that the excellent work carried out by Lord Dholakia, and his colleagues (leading to the amendments of the ROA 1974 (via LASPOA 2012)), is one small, but, very important, step, in enabling those who have served their debt to society (and more), towards integration as good-standing and productive members of that society. I do have to say, in these days, it is relatively brave and rare, for a government to support such amendments.

Prejudice and persecution, against people, such as myself, are rife, within our communities; that can never be 'a good thing'.

It is now illuminating, to consider the intention of Parliament, when the original Sex Offenders Bill (1996) and Act (1997), were being created:

"The Bill

The Government published its Sex Offenders Bill on 18 December 1996 ... For present purposes, we will focus on Part 1 ... which in turn constituted five clauses, specifying the offenders who will have to register and for how long they will be required to register; describing what information must be supplied and how; making failure to comply with the requirements an offence; outlining the position of young offenders (i.e. under 18 years); and empowering courts to issue certificates stating details of the court hearing. How did the Bill compare to the Consultation Document? First we should note that, although putting forward options, the Consultation Document did contain what might be called the Government's 'preferred options'. These included, firstly, that we did actually have registration requirements, and that their duration should match that of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. (my emphasis). Failure to register was to be an absolute offence and the provisions should not be retrospective; the offence of failing to register would be a summary one. Registration was to be in the locality where the offender lived. The Government wanted access to the information on record to be given to those engaged in child protection activities.

The Bill reflected all of these 'preferred options' (my emphasis), although again had nothing directly to say on the subject of allowing access to registered information. It is true to say that the Government continually held the line on all its preferred options, although some were held more easily than others."

(Thomas, T. (2000), Sex Crime: Sex Offending and Society, pg. 108-109, Willan).

The arguments, which the present government supported, towards the LASPOA 2012 amendments, are parallel in nature to those considered, during their creation, and are on record, in the usual places.

I need not comment, here, about the continuing, draconian, populist, mission creep, within the notification requirements, which a person in my position suffers. I have stated such, here, and no doubt, will do so again, in the future:

The Creation of Fresh Pariahs
http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/creation-of-fresh-pariahs.html

This is particularly irritating, in a personal sense, as it rests only.on Wiles,  which I (amongst others) see as per incuriam, in itself. It is galling and offensive, to one such as myself, who presents no more a risk to society, than any man in the street (and never has - quite the opposite, in fact).

So, the question is this; does the government intend to re-balance the notification periods, with those in the LASPOA 2012 amendments and with the original intention of Parliament?

If that answer is "no", why not?

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/part/3/chapter/8/enacted

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53 (requires correction, at the time of writing, via Commencement)

Sexual Offences Act 2003
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2

Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill [HL]: Second Reading
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110121-0001.htm#11012142000397

Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_9367000/9367178.stm

Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120119200607/http:/www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/breaking-the-cycle.pdf


**********

Issue 3:

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 - Commencement

Do you have any further guidance on (or dates applying to) when the periods, described in Issue 2, are likely to be 'Commenced'?

**********

Issue 4:

The ICPC

Regarding the ICPC, I received this email, from your representative:

"public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

19 Oct
to me
Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield,
Reference : T14916/12
Date: 19-Oct-2012

TREAT OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE

Thank you for your e-mail of 18/10/2012 8:11:07 PM.

The matters you have raised are the responsibility of Department for Education.

We have therefore transferred your e-mail to DfE, who will arrange for a reply to be sent to you.

Transfer Desk"

Please provide, in as much detail as possible, to whom my request was redirected.

For the record, I do not believe, for one moment, it is the responsibility of the DfE; Do you?


**********

If you believe that any of my requests relate better to The Ministry of Justice, please redirect my email to them, informing me that you have done so and to whom. You may treat this as a request, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, if you so desire.

For the record, it is very likely, that these communications will be shared with my local Member of Parliament and, possibly, in later legal action(s). They may, also, be posted online.

A copy of this email is posted at:

http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/a-communication-to-our-home-secretary.html

... with active hyperlinks, where appropriate.

A copy of this email has been sent to the Rt Hon Theresa May MP, and my PPU, by Royal Mail.

I look forward to your reply, which is preferred, by email.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield
wmcriticalestoppel@googlemail.com
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk
http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk

**********

Nigel.

*****

Addendum (2/8/13)

"The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is an important piece of legislation. It is designed to help people with a criminal record get back into work by allowing their record to become ‘spent’ after a period of time, provided they have not reoffended.

Once a record is spent, this means that the person is no longer required to declare their offence to a prospective employer. At this point, as the Act says, they are ‘entitled to be treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not been convicted or sentenced’."

http://www.nacro.org.uk/what-we-do/resettlement-advice-service/reforms-to-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders-act/what-is-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders-act-1974,1346,NAP.html

**********

Nigel.

Contemporary Slavery In The UK

"What is forced labour?

What is the problem?

Forced labour is any work or services which people are forced to do against their will under the threat of some form [of] punishment. Almost all slavery practices, including trafficking in people and bonded labour, contain some element of forced labour."

Home \ English \ Slavery Today \ Forced Labour

Forced labour: contemporary slavery in the UK

"Influencing the development of policy and practice to reduce forced labour in the UK.

Our overall goal is to contribute to a reduction in forced labour in the UK by highlighting the issue with new, strong evidence on the extent of forced labour and interventions that might help eradicate it; and identifying practical solutions and sharing best practice in supporting victims of forced labour."

Home / Our work / Forced labour: contemporary slavery in the UK

*****

The Queen (on the application of) Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 2292 (Admin)

Reilly - CO/260/2012 and Wilson - CO/1087/2012

"174 ... it does have to be said that the sbwa scheme, and indeed the CAP, are a very long way removed from the kind of colonial exploitation of labour that led to the formulation of Article 4. The Convention is, of course, a living instrument, capable of development to meet modern conditions, and views may reasonably differ about the merits of a scheme that requires individuals to “work for their benefits” as a means of assisting them back into the workplace. However, characterising such a scheme as involving or being analogous to “slavery” or “forced labour” seems to me to be a long way from contemporary thinking.

Mr Walsh’s first witness statement refers to details of research which it is suggested shows that schemes like the CAP can and do have a beneficial effect in relation to the obtaining of work by the long-term unemployed. It is no part of the court’s function to evaluate that evidence or to comment on its Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Reilly & Wilson v DWP validity. However, if valid, its existence would reinforce the view that a scheme like the CAP does not offend Article 4.

175. Whilst the argument in Nikiforova concerned different Regulations (see paragraph 52 above), the approach of Bean J and the Court of Appeal in that case supports this conclusion.

176. For these reasons, briefly stated, I do not consider that either scheme is contrary to Article 4, nor do I consider that there has been any breach in Miss Reilly’s case."

 *****

Welfare Reform Act 2012

The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011

March 2011

Report

"The Purpose of the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme

15. The Committee, along with some respondents, set out a concern regarding the intention of the scheme, likening it to a punishment, rather than a supportive employment programme.

16. The Government does not accept this position. The Mandatory Work Activity Scheme is targeted at those customers who have demonstrated that they require support to gain work related disciplines and re-engage with their search for work, as well as failing to voluntarily engage in the support that is offered by Jobcentre Plus. The Mandatory Work Activity Scheme is not a sanction, or a punishment, but has been developed in recognition that some customers require additional support."

The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 

Jobseekers Act 1995

*****

Posted on December 14, 2012

Could Mandatory Work Activity be on the Brink of Collapse?

"An evaluation of the Government’s Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) scheme, commissioned and published by the DWP, reveals that welfare-to-work companies are struggling to find enough placements for all those forced into unpaid work. In a further blow to the DWP’s plans for mass workfare, this report was released before several major charities, including Scope, British Heart Foundation, Age UK and Cancer Research announced they were pulling out of the scheme."

RR 823 Evaluation of Mandatory Work Activity - December 2012

Read summary
Read full report

Mandatory Programmes Official Statistics - November 2012
Mandatory Programme Statistics August 2012

*****

November 11, 2012

Government So Ashamed of Workfare it Blocks Information about it

"The Department of Work and Pensions is refusing to publish the names of charities and businesses where tens of thousands of unemployed people are being made to work without pay for four weeks at a time."

Is the Work Programme really Forced Labour/Slavery in the UK?

Between decent work and forced labour: examining the continuum of exploitation
 
Between decent work and forced labour: examining the continuum of exploitation
 
Nigel

Working On A Big Project - At Long Last

"The sex offender register is arguably a prime example of criminal justice policy made at a political level in response to perceived populist demands and with no real supporting experience or research to support it."

"Politicians have pushed it in directions that suit their own purposes and practitioners and campaigners have been able to push it in the directions that they want. The pushing in question has often been based on a high profile crime against a child and that is very difficult to argue against. In the meantime the register has become more burdensome and pressing on the human rights of those required to notify."

The Sex Offender Register - A measure of public protection or a punishment in its own right?
Terry Thomas, Leeds Metropolitan University

Nigel

It Haunts Men Like An Evil Genius ...

“Next in importance to personal freedom is immunity from suspicions and jealous observation.

Men may be without restraints upon their liberty; they may pass to and fro at pleasure; but if their steps are tracked by spies and informers, their words noted down for crimination, their associates watched as conspirators – who shall say that they are free?

Nothing is more revolting to Englishmen than the espionage which forms part of the administrative system of continental despotisms.

It haunts men like an evil genius, chills their gaiety, restrains their wit, casts a shadow over their friendships, and blights their domestic hearth. The freedom of this country may be measured by its immunity from this baleful agency.”

Thomas Erskine May, Constitutional History of England (1863)

Nigel 

The SOPO - A Punishment Without A Crime (Part 1)

SOPOs (i.e. Sexual Offences Prevention Orders) are now being used*, in lieu of prison sentences, to punish, satiate ill-informed public and police opinion and to infringe (no, stomp all over) the civil and Human Rights of ex-offenders. It should also be noted, that a SOPO may be applied for, against ex-offenders who have no previous 'sexual' convictions.

*****

Sexual Offences Prevention Orders - Andrew Keogh
This eBook is provided free to all CrimeLine users with our compliments
November 2011, CrimeLine

Sexual Offences Prevention Orders after R. v. Smith - Nicola Devas
Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPO’s) were introduced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ss104-113 and have recently been extensively reviewed by the Court of Appeal in the case of R .v. Smith & others, OPB 2012

Is My SOPO Lawful? - 13KBW

R v Beeden – Case Comment (Breach of a SOPO)

SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDERS - VOLUMES 1 AND 2

Individuals convicted of sexual offences - Sexual offence convictions - SOPOs Included

Sexual Offences - Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) - CPS

S113. Breach of SOPO or interim SOPO - CPS

Guidance On Part 2 Of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 - HO

Sexual Offences Act: Definitive Guidelines - SGC

Sexual Offences Prevention Orders – Tips for practitioners

*****

Here is one example, there will be more to follow:

Re: SOR legislation fighting fund!...« Reply #40 on: Today at 10:33:17 »

"I work with someone who is on the Register and still has a job - though not the same job he had before his conviction for downloading. He is basically a good man, in his late 50s. The prosecution got a SOPO and tried to stop him having Internet access but because of the ruling in R v Smith and others last year they had to allow him access through the library. He can't even have Internet access on his phone. He wasn't imprisoned for the offences but obviously would be if he reoffended. Instead he is on a 3 year probation order and on the register for life.

Apparently, he is a great fan of the opinion site and has been following this forum ever since it started and when this thread started, he thought that at last there was hope for the future. But he told me straight that he is terrified of even making a post here because the police have told him that if he contacts any other sex offender by any means* - including online forums - they will ask for the SOPO to be varied, he will lose all access to the Internet and they will seek to imprison him as his risk will be seen as having increased."

http://theopinionsite.org/forum/sex-offenders-register-%28notification-requirements%29/sor-legislation-fighting-fund!/msg541/#new

*contrary to Articles 18, 19, 20 and 27 of the UDoHR and Articles 9, 10, 11, and 14 of the ECoHR.

To be continued.

Nigel

On The SOA2003(R)O 2012

I contributed some research and content, to The OSC's recent piece, on the The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2012 (appeal of indefinite notification], which can be found, here.

Just How 'Progressive' Are You WIlling To Fight For?

Tuesday, 28 August 2012

Progressive Sexuality

"The ever-excellent Paul Bernal at UEA responds on his blog to a call for submissions to Labour Left’s ‘Red Book II’, by Dr Éoin Clarke, with a series of recommendations for any progressive party regarding digital policy. As I tweeted earlier, I agree with his suggestions (see here).

Although a Lib Dem member (who is debating renewing his membership) rather than a Labour-backer like Bernal, I thought the idea of setting out a series of progressive socio-legal policy objectives is a useful one, and one that I've found myself thinking about this morning in the context of sexuality."

http://lawandsexuality.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/progressive-sexuality.html

My comment to Chris:

"Abolish indecent image offences (particularly 'Making' (i.e. downloading) - POCA1978 and 'Possession' - CJA 1988), as being 'Sexual Offences'.

Keep them as an 'OPA'/'Extreme’-type offence*, if ***one must***, although even that is not desirable or necessary.

http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/why-owning-indecent-images-of-children.html

At least be consistent.

'Taking' only to be 'Sexual', if decided to be, by a court, as for any other 'Sexual' activity, as defined in the Act.

Dr NL Oldfield"

*to go, in any case, in time.

Nigel

The Creation of Fresh Pariahs

The Creation of Fresh Pariahs - Few Equal Opportunities For Us

In 1997, what may have appeared to be a reasonable and beneficial idea, towards a better society, has now become a living nightmare for many individuals and families.

Since that time, mission creep, populist political posturing and law-making, along with the vested interests of the media, lobby groups and a stifling regime of policing, has led to fear, disenfranchisement and little hope towards a worthy future for these people and their families.

This, not small, group of UK citizens, some isolated and poverty-stricken for no good reason, has little real support, a limited ability to fight for their Civil and Human Rights and some, quite unacceptably, live in constant fear of attack or harassment.

So, who can these people be? Who is this sizeable, yet, apparently, invisible group? Who could be suffering so much and yet be receiving so little attention? This group of people are the so-called ‘Sex Offenders’ and their families. This group includes me. Thank You.

Uploaded by: CriticalEstoppelMM on Jul 3, 2010,
Topic: The Creation of Fresh Pariahs,
Section: Few Equal Opportunities For Us,
Creator: Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield July 2010.
Video Entry to The Times/Herbert Smith Advocacy Competition, 2010

The full piece ...

The Creation of Fresh Pariahs

The SOA 1997 was seen, by many, to be a reasonable piece of legislation. What responsible person could argue that those dangerous to society (particularly in a sexual manner) should not have their personal details made easily-available (amongst other rationalisations), allowing the authorities to access them in times of criminal crisis?

Since that time, a raft of related Statutes, Instruments and related Case Law have led to, what the authorities like to describe as “… some of the most stringent laws governing sex offenders in the world …" (1). It certainly is this, but it is a great deal more. It has now led to a Pariah status for thousands of citizens, who, until quite recently, would not only not have been perceived (or assessed to be) a danger to society, but would not have been criminals at all. It would be nice to believe that these unfortunate actions may have had a positive effect on reducing the number of sexual offences, but that has not been the case

Fortunately, in the last few years, we have seen some inklings of rationality illuminating the courts, within this arena (2-5), however, much damage has been done and continues to be done, for little good reason. Society is now so illogically-fearful of, and hate-directed to, the ‘Sex Offender’, to a point where it is, essentially, impossible to have a rational, evidenced-based, discussion in the public, or even academic, arena.

It is proposed, that this is only one (particularly effective) vehicle to maintain and build empires, and to extend and introduce further surveillance, monitoring, vetting and control regimes, which are now being applied to those, regardless of the nature of an earlier crime, or even for those without a criminal record. (6)

The issue of social and personal impact has been introduced in the Presentation. It is impossible to find any other UK minority, where certain individuals (7) and groups are treated (quite legally, in many examples), in such an appalling, inequitable and devastating manner.

It is my proposition, that we live in a time and place of absolute hysteria, regarding ‘Sexual Offending’, and that this has not arisen by accident. I also propose that the present legal (including ineffective advocates), judicial, academic and media reaction to ‘Sexual Offending’ does more harm than good (by a number of measures) and this is, evidentially, the case.

References

(1) Beckford, M. and Stokes, P. (2010), Human rights laws stopped Home Office tracking sex offenders’ emails, The Telegraph, March 10, 2010 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7406462/Human-rights-laws-stopped-Home-Office-tracking-sex-offenders-emails.html> Accessed May 27, 2010 (media website).

(2) The BBC (2008), Sex offenders win rights ruling, BBC News, December 19, 2008 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7792497.stm> Accessed May 27, 2010 (media website); R (on the application of F (by his litigation friend F)) and Thompson (FC) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2009] EWCA Civ 792 <http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/17.html> Accessed May 27, 2010 (law website).

(3) HeraldScotland (2010), Scots sex offenders win human rights fight, The Herald, May 20, 2010 <http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/scots-sex-offenders-win-human-rights-fight-1.1029070> Accessed May 29, 2010 (media website).

(4) This is Bristol (2009), Prison sentences for child porn cut, Evening Post, December 6, 2009 <http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Prison-sentences-child-porn-cut/story-11239361-detail/story.html> Accessed May 29, 2010 (media website).

(5) Garden Court North Chambers (2008), Imprisonment for Public Protection, February 27, 2008 <http://www.gcnchambers.co.uk/gcn/areas_of_specialisation/areas/criminal_defence/criminal_law_updates/criminal_law_update_27_2_08> Accessed May 27, 2010 (law company website); R v Alexander James Terrell [2007] EWCA Crim 3079 <http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/3079.html> Accessed May 27, 2010 (law website).

(6) Russell, J. (2009), Paranoia casts volunteers as perverts, The Sunday Times, December 13, 2009 <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6954534.ece> Accessed May 29, 2010 (media website).

(7) Ozimek, J.F. (2010), Sex offender downloads child pr0n to get back into prison - A purely practical measure, The Register, June 18, 2010 <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/18/download_prison/> Accessed June 5, 2010 (media website).

_____

Nigel