Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts

Monday, 27 May 2013

My Jailor And My Liberator


Top judge Alan Goldsack QC who is retiring at the end of May
pictured in his chambers at Sheffield Crown Court 21 May 2013

‘Remove children from criminal families’, says Sheffield judge

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/remove-children-from-criminal-families-says-sheffield-judge-1-5708134

Nigel

Thursday, 28 March 2013

Recreated, In Full, For Later Reference

Identifying and Dealing with "Child Savers"*

Thomas D. Oellerich*

ABSTRACT: Child sexual abuse is immoral and should be condemned. However, equally immoral is the activity perpetrated by "child savers." These are professionals who, in their zeal to protect alleged child and adult victims of child sexual abuse, adversely impact the lives of individuals and families. The primary purpose of this paper is to provide a set of indicators which should alert practitioners that they are in the presence of these professionals. A second purpose is to recommend alternative ways for social workers and the profession to deal with child savers.

The recent allegations of sexual abuse in Wenatchee, Washington suggest that the zealotry that marked such cases as the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, the Wee Care Day Care Center in New Jersey, the Little Rascals Day Care Center in North Carolina, and Faith Chapel in San Diego persists. These cases represent a twentieth-century witch hunt. Child sexual abuse is immoral and illegal. Some children need protection. But, as indicated by these and other cases (Nathan & Snedeker, 1995), they and their families need protection as well from present day "child savers" (Wexler, 1995). These are the descendants of the child saving and child rescue movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Costin, 1985; Wexler, 1995). They are the professionals-social workers, therapists, physicians, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors-who, in their zeal to protect children, instead harm them and devastate the lives of families (Freyd, et al., 1993; Tavris, 1993; Wexler, 1995; & the newsletters of the FMS Foundation).

The purpose of this paper is twofold: 1) to identify those indicators that should lead one to suspect a professional is a child saver, and, 2) to make recommendations to social work practitioners and the profession to deal with this category of professionals.

The Indicators for Child Savers

A review of the literature suggests that child savers manifest certain beliefs concerning the problem of child sexual abuse. These beliefs, in turn, can serve as indicators for suspecting a professional may be a child saver.

The Proselytizer

The first indicator that a professional may be a child saver is when he or she becomes a proselytizer. This professional spreads the gospel of satanic ritual abuse, despite the absence of corroborative evidence for such allegations. Lanning (1991) reported that, despite intensive investigations over an eight-year period, law enforcement officials had found no credible evidence supporting allegations of ritual abuse. A five-year governmentally-funded study, conducted by Goodman, Qin, Bottoms, and Shaver (1994), concluded that hard evidence for satanic ritual abuse "was scant to nonexistent" (p. 6). And, more recently, Bottoms and Davis (1997) observed that there never were highly organized satanic ritual abuse cults in this country. They based this conclusion on their own surveys, the fact that the police and FBI agents have never found evidence of satanic ritual abuse, and the discrediting of and the recantations by alleged victims.

But the child savers firmly believe the claims of ritualistic abuse and continue to promulgate this notion (Goodman et al., 1994; Bottoms & Davis, 1997; Bottoms, Shaver, & Goodman, 1996). They reject reports as biased that do not corroborate the existence of satanic ritual abuse. The evidence, however, confirms the conclusion of the San Diego Grand Jury (1992, June), which investigated that county's child protective system and concluded that:

the existence of satanic ritual abuse is a contemporary myth perpetuated by a small number of social workers, therapists, and law enforcement members who ... cannot be dissuaded by a lack of physical evidence (p. 18).

This contemporary myth is far from benign. As Bottoms and Davis (1997) point out, those who become involved with these professionals may live the rest of their lives with a false, painful belief. And they may act on this belief with untold harm to innocent individuals. These are often parents who are subjected to misguided lawsuits and imprisonment for crimes they did not commit.

The Validator

Second, child savers are those professional interveners who should remain objective but do not. They act as validators (Gardner, 1991). These professionals have as their purpose to "validate" even the most bizarre of allegations. The investigation of the Alicia Wade case by the San Diego Grand Jury (1992, June) revealed that county's child protective system to be inherently biased and unable to detect or correct its errors. In this system, social workers, therapists, investigators, and prosecutors operated on the presumption that an allegation of child sexual abuse meant that the abuse had in fact occurred. Evidence to the contrary was routinely ignored.

Indeed, the Grand Jury (1992, February) reported that some social workers may well have committed perjury in order to gain convictions. Lorandos (1995) also reports social workers withholding or falsifying information in civil proceedings in order to secure a judgment they deemed "in the best interests of the child."

The Exaggerator

Third, child savers are those professionals who disseminate exaggerated claims of the prevalence of child sexual abuse in this country. For example, they refer to the work of Russell (1983) or Wyatt (1985). Russell reported that more than half (54%) of all women experienced some form of intra- and extrafamilial sexual abuse prior to age 18; Wyatt, that more than three-fifths (62%) of women had. As noted by Okami (1990), these prevalence rates far exceed the rates reported in virtually all other major studies.

These high rates, according to Okami, are the result of using moral and political criteria to define abuse. In this context, Okami points out that Russell's study was severely compromised by her selection and training of her interviewers. Moreover, both studies dismissed self-reports of inconsequential or of loving, noncoercive adult/nonadult sexual interactions as invalid interpretations of their experiences.

In point of fact, the actual prevalence of child sexual abuse is not known. Reports of prevalence from different surveys range from 6% to 62% for females and from 3% to 30% for males (Geffner, 1992; Peters, Wyatt, & Finkelhor, 1986). Such a range of numbers hardly instills confidence about what is really known about the prevalence of child sexual abuse.

Estimates of the prevalence of child sexual abuse are complicated by variations in the definitions of sexual abuse, as Levitt and Pinnell (1995) note in their review of the literature. Definitions vary with respect to the types of behavior that is to be included, the age differences between those involved, and the presence or absence of coercion and/or force (Browne & Finkelhor, 1986). Thus, some studies define sexual abuse as including everything from exhibitionism to rape to incestuous intercourse. Others use more narrow criteria. As a result, Levitt and Pinnell conclude that it is impossible to determine the true prevalence of child sexual abuse.

In a similar fashion, the child savers prefer referring to the numbers of reported cases of child sexual abuse. They ignore the fact that considerably less than half of reported cases are substantiated (Lorandos & Campbell, 1995).

Additionally, child savers claim that the increased rate of reported cases reflects a real increase in prevalence. Thus, they assert there is an epidemic of child sexual abuse (Loftus & Ketcham, 1994). But the evidence does not support this claim. Feldman, et al. (1991) compared data obtained in the 1970s and 1980s with data from the 1940s and found that the prevalence rates were similar. Kilpatrick (1992), in her study of 501 women from Florida and Georgia, found, when her data were analyzed by different age groups, a definite trend toward decreasing sexual activity among those 14 and under over the past 60 years, while the trend for adolescents had remained constant over that same period of time.

The child savers, however, prefer the larger numbers, as these provide them with what Gilbert (1991) refers to as "advocacy numbers" as opposed to legitimate numbers. Advocacy numbers are figures that are used to persuade public opinion that a problem is significantly greater than is generally recognized, rather than attempting to foster scientific understanding.

The Trauma Ideologist

Fourth, child savers are purveyors of what Schultz (1980) refers to as trauma ideology. Trauma ideologists regard every incident of sexual abuse as inevitably psychologically harmful, even devastating (Cole, 1982). That sexual contacts of a minor with an adult might be experienced without harm or even positively, is, to the child savers, heresy. For example, Kilpatrick (1992) concluded that early child and adolescent sexual experiences, unless there was force or high pressure involved, had no influence on later adult functioning regardless of the type of partner involved (i.e., relative or non-relative) or the age differences. She reported that, when she discussed her findings with professionals, they closed their ears to them. They were most closed to those findings that indicated positive reactions to these early sexual experiences and to those findings that indicated that incestuous experiences did not cause irreparable harm (p. xviii).

The evidence suggests that, although child sexual abuse is potentially psychologically damaging, this is not always the case. A review of 45 studies by Kendall-Tackett, Williams, and Finkelhor (1993) concludes that up to 49% of the sexually abused children suffered no psychological harm. Thus, Kendall-Tackett, et al. concluded that a lack of symptoms could not be used to rule out sexual abuse since "there are too many sexually abused children who are apparently asymptomatic" (p. 175).

Among those with psychological harm, Kendall-Tackett, et al. report that some become worse. However, the majority of studies in this review indicated that, when the sexually abused children in treatment were compared with nonabused children in treatment, the sexually abused were less symptomatic than their nonabused clinical counterparts. In addition, the majority of those showing psychological harm improved markedly within 12 to 18 months with or without treatment.

In an earlier review of 28 studies, Browne and Finkelhor (1986) concluded that, when studied as adults, less than 20% of those who had been sexually abused as children had serious psychopathology as adults. Browne and Finkelhor observed that these findings should provide comfort to victims since severe long-term effects were not inevitable. They note with concern the efforts of child advocates to exaggerate the harmful effects for political purposes because of its potential to harm the victims and their families.

That the claims of harm are exaggerated and, indeed, may well be inaccurate is substantiated in a landmark study by Rind and Tromovitch (1997). These researchers noted that most of the prior reviews had drawn upon clinical and legal samples, which are not representative of the general population. They conducted a meta-analysis of seven studies that used national probability samples, which are more appropriate for making population relevant inferences. The studies included four from the United States, and one each from Great Britain, Canada, and Spain. Their findings indicated that harm from child sexual abuse is not pervasive among those who experienced early sexual experiences. Further, the harm, when it occurs, is not serious.

These findings confirm the earlier findings of Kinsey and his associates (1953) who found that, among those participants (24%) who had had sexual contact with adults in their childhood, 80% recalled being emotionally upset by these contacts. However, in all but a few cases, the negative effect was "nearer the level that children will show when they see insects, spiders, or other objects against which they have been adversely conditioned" (p. 121).

Moreover, Rind and Tromovitch's meta-analysis supports the view that the behaviors and attitudes exhibited by the sexually abused are unlikely to be the effects of the sexual abuse. They may be the result, instead, of preexisting problems, or even of professional and community intervention, as earlier reported by Constantine (1981).

Further, there is no sound research supporting the stereotypical linkage of child sexual abuse and later adult psychopathology. Existing research in this regard is so seriously methodologically flawed that it is virtually valueless, according to Pope and Hudson (1995). A similar conclusion was arrived at by staff of the False Memory Foundation (Staff, 1996, September) who, with the help of members of the Foundation's Scientific Advisory Committee, analyzed the research in this area. They identified the assumption that childhood sexual abuse results in the development of psychiatric disorders in adulthood as a leading candidate to join the ranks of other mental health myths. They noted that

to question the pathogenic effects of childhood sexual abuse is often considered heretical-just as it would have been scandalous, a generation ago, to question whether bad mothering could turn children into schizophrenics (p. 3).

It is, in fact, far from proven that childhood sexual abuse has any significant influence upon the adult personality. As noted by Seligman (1994), adults are not prisoners of their past, even a past marked by childhood trauma.

That child sexual abuse may not be harmful is not to condone it or to suggest that it should not be considered either immoral or illegal or both. Conte (1985) has pointed out that decisions concerning the appropriateness of adult/nonadult sexual interactions involve ethical, legal, and religious principles. By way of example, robbery is unlawful not because it results in psychological harm but because society has decided that people have a right to their own property. Put another way, the question of the effects of child sexual abuse should not be confused with the moral and/or legal issue of dealing with this behavior.

The Therapy Marketeer

The final indicator suggesting a professional may be a child saver is when the professional acts as a therapy marketeer, exaggerating the need for therapy for the victims of sexual abuse. From 44% to 73% of victims are likely to receive some form of psychotherapy (Finkelhor & Berliner, 1995; Miller, Cohen, & Wiersema, 1996). This, of course, is in line with a belief in the trauma ideology.

Many children, however, are referred to therapy who do not need to be. The fact that significant numbers of the sexually abused are not psychologically harmed and those who are improve within a year or two without any treatment attests to the minimal need, if any, for therapy. Thus, the concern expressed by the San Diego Grand Jury (1992, February) that referrals to therapists were simply "feeding another subindustry of the System" (p. 37) is well founded. The approach of the psychotherapeutic community to child sexual abuse reflects a mental health industry searching for a new disease which offers it new opportunities for economic growth (Costin, Karger, & Stoesz 1996).

Further, there is no sound research evidence indicating that therapy for the sexually abused is effective (Berliner, 1995; Berliner & Elliott, 1996; Reid, 1996). Holenberg and Ragan (1991) reported in their synthesis of selected research projects funded by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect that most of the information on treatment efficacy was based on anecdotal case studies or descriptions of treatment programs.

Most treatment programs are either atheoretical or based on untested theoretical assumptions (Friedrich, 1996). And this is to the everlasting harm of some (Campbell, 1994). For example, in the Alicia Wade case, it was as a result of her therapist's brainwashing in over of year of so-called therapy involving twice weekly visits that Alicia finally "disclosed" that her father had raped her (San Diego Grand Jury, 1992, June 23). In fact, as Alicia had previously maintained, she had been raped by a stranger — and it turned out he was a serial rapist!

Lest this be seen as idiosyncratic, a recently completed evaluation of repressed memory claims with the State of Washington's Crime Victims Compensation Program (Loftus, 1997; Parr, 1996) clearly indicates the potential for the harm that can be inflicted by therapy. Some therapists believe that childhood sexual abuse is a central experience in the lives of their clients (Campbell, 1994). They contend that the trauma of child sexual abuse motivates the patients to repress this experience. Given the centrality of this experience, these therapists assume it is necessary for their patients to recover previously repressed memories of their sexual abuse if they are to heal.

But quite the opposite can occur, as indicated by Parr's (1996) study. She reported that patients involved in repressed memory therapy displayed

an unusually high rate of mental and emotional problems which manifest during therapy and are proliferated as therapy continues. Repressed memory patients tend to be in therapy significantly longer than other mental health clients but with little improvement in their conditions even after years of therapy. Indeed, it appears that the longer the patient is [in] treatment, the more disabled s(he) will become. Of significant concern is that over the course of time, repressed memory patients often become isolated from their families and communities, suffer employment and financial losses and demonstrate devastating mental problems which diminishes their capacity to form or maintain meaningful relationships or enjoy life (Parr, pp. 1-2).

Moreover, anecdotal case studies show that therapists have implanted memories of childhood sexual abuse that never occurred (Loftus & Ketcham, 1994; Ofshe & Watters, 1994; the newsletters of the FMS Foundation).

Additionally, there is growing evidence that the recent epidemic of Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) is an artifact of therapy. It is a therapist induced disorder rather than an effect of child sexual abuse (McHugh, 1993; Ofshe & Watters, 1994; Sarbin, 1997). Parr (1996) reported that the primary diagnosis in most repressed memory claims to the Crime Victims Compensation Program was MPD and that it was not unusual for the claimant to have dozens or even hundreds of personalities — one claim involved over 700 alter states and another over 3000. Parr's findings buttress the conclusion of Ofshe and Watters:

Examining the fad diagnosis of MPD, the cruelty of recovered memory therapy becomes particularly clear. Thousands of clients have learned to display the often-debilitating symptoms of a disorder that they never had. They become less capable of living normal lives, more dependent on therapy, and inevitably more troubled (p. 223).

Lastly, there is no evidence that reliving the abuse experience has any positive effects. Seligman (1994) notes that, although catharsis has a long history as a therapeutic technique, there is no evidence that it works. He adds that efforts by parents and well-meaning therapists and courts of law often magnify the trauma in the child's mind by repeatedly tearing off the protective scar tissue of the wound. Thus, these well-intentioned people are actually interfering with the natural healing process.

Summary

In brief, child savers are those professionals who purport to protect victims of child sexual abuse but who instead harm them and devastate the lives of families. They have certain beliefs which are red flags for identifying them: 1) a proselytizer who spreads the false gospel of satanic ritual abuse; 2) a validator who confirms uncorroborated allegations of sexual abuse no matter how bizarre; 3) an exaggerator or user of advocacy numbers; 4) a trauma ideologist; and 5) a therapy marketeer.

Recommendations

How should social workers and the profession protect the community from the harm caused by child saving and how should these perpetrators be dealt with? Nathan and Snedeker (1995) note that "the demonization of child sexual abuse as society's ultimate evil has rendered it so holy as to be virtually immune to reasoned analysis" (p. 252). It is this atmosphere of hysteria which breeds and sustains the child saver. Social workers and the profession can and must do a number of things to minimize, if not eliminate, this atmosphere of hysteria and mitigate the impact of the child savers. These include:

1. Social workers and the profession need to rid themselves of the socio-political and legalistic biases contained in the use of such terms as "victims" and "perpetrators." As recommended by Nelson and Meller (1994), until damage has been established, such terms as "participant" or "partner" would be better to use.

Further, professionals should reserve the use of condemnatory terms to those situations where damage is clearly established. Nelson and Meller recommended that the terms, "molestation" and "rape," should be used only when it has been determined that coercion was indeed present. To define experiences as abusive which are described by the allegedly abused as loving, caring, or noncoercive is a contradiction in terms (Okami, 1994). Hence, the term, "abuse," should be replaced by such terms as "experience" or "incident" until it is determined that the episode was, in fact, harmful.

2. Kilpatrick (1992) noted there is an assumption that children who have sexual experiences with or propositions from persons who are 5 or more years older than they, "are automatically victimized, and harm is done" (p. 115). This notion is derived from what Okami (1994) referred to as the sex-political principle. This principle assumes that the differential degrees of social power accorded older persons and younger persons automatically define any sexual contact between such persons as abusive. Kilpatrick's findings repudiate this assumption. She found that the relative age of the woman's partner in her early sexual experience(s) was not related to her adult functioning. Accordingly, practitioners should not assume an abusive situation until it has been established the situation entailed coercion and/or was in fact harmful.

3. Social work practitioners and the profession must educate the community and, most especially, the courts about the myths that surround the problem of child sexual abuse. It is these myths that fuel the hysteria surrounding considerations of childhood sexuality (Okami, 1994). First, professionals need to rebut the myth that early sexual experiences are necessarily and inevitably psychologically harmful. It is not the function of professionals or the profession to provide a psychological justification for the fact that such experiences are and/or should be illegal and/or immoral. This is a lesson that mental health professionals should have learned from the controversy over homosexuality.

Next, the profession and professionals must inform the community that therapy is most often unnecessary and is contraindicated in most cases of early sexual experiences. Indeed, professionals must make the community aware that therapy is potentially harmful and that it may well interfere with the natural healing processes. Seligman (1994), in writing of his early experiences with what today would be labeled child sexual abuse, asserted these experiences had no negative impact on his later psychological adjustment. He attributed this to his having been spared the overreaction of parents and police, and early therapeutic intervention to undo his "denial," and later therapeutic intervention to recover his "repressed" memory and then reliving the experience to heal his current problems. Parents and the community should be advised to follow Seligman's recommendation "to turn the volume down as soon as possible" (p. 235).

4. Tavris (1993) denounced the "incest-survivor machine" as a multi-million dollar industry built around the concept of child sexual abuse. The average cost associated with repressed memory claims in the state of Washington's Crime Victims Compensation Program was approximately four times the average claim in other mental health claims (Parr, 1996). The average cost of nonrepressed memory claim was less than $3,000; that of repressed memory claims, more than $12,000, with one claim exceeding $50,000. In just over four years, the citizens of Washington paid out over 2.5 million dollars for 325 repressed memory claims. Most of the diagnoses in this program involved MPD.

Parr's study confirms Piper's (1994) contention that psychotherapy for this condition is far from being cost effective. It is, however, highly lucrative for the therapists. In a similar vein, a recent report of the National Institute of Justice found that up to 50% and more of the child sexual abuse victims receive mental health care at an average cost of $5,800 (Miller, et al., 1996). This contrasts with a usage rate of no more than 4% for victims of other crimes with an average cost of less than $100.

Given the absence of sound research evidence demonstrating the efficacy of therapy and its potential for harm, the profession and practitioners should support private health insurance companies and government health care programs to follow the lead of the state of Washington and not reimburse for any treatments deemed experimental, such as those aimed at the recovery of memories of sexual abuse (Staff, 1997 March; 1997 April).

Or, at the very least, as recommended by Parr (1996), treatment should follow managed care restrictions for short-term, limited intervention. Thus, the financial incentives of therapists to operate what Campbell (1994) refers to as "rent-a-friend" agencies with long-term leases will be undermined. These serve the therapists' interests but not those of their clients.

5. The profession and practitioners must work toward the passage of informed consent laws in the provision of psychotherapy. Indiana is the first state to pass such legislation (Freyd, 1997, June). Given the harm that can occur as a result of treatment, patients have an ethical right and must have a legal right to be informed of the risks as well as the potential benefits of therapy. The risks include suicidal ideation, self-mutilation, and mental decompensation necessitating inpatient hospitalization (Ofshe & Watters, 1994; Parr, 1996). With this information, prospective patients can make an informed decision as to whether to subject themselves or their children to the risks associated with treatment.

Additionally, the patient's spouse or partner, and other family members need also to be advised of the side effects of therapy. They need to be prepared for the new and often bizarre behavior that the patient may exhibit. They need to know how they are to cope with these changes.

6. In light of the harm that can and does occur to patients, social work practitioners must act to support patients in their efforts to sue their therapists. Practitioners need to have available a list of attorneys to whom they can refer their clients to pursue such lawsuits.

Successful lawsuits have been brought against therapists. For example, most recently, Patricia Burgus won an out-of-court settlement of $10.6 million against the Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Hospital, and Drs. Poznanski and Braun for having implanted false memories of sexual abuse (Belluck, 1997). Earlier, the Wade family lawsuit against San Diego County and the professionals who brought about their tragedy was settled for $3.7 (Hagen, 1997). Two former patients of Dr. Diane Humenansky in Minnesota won multimillion dollar judgments against her for implanting false memories of sexual abuse (Staff, 1996, March). A San Diego jury ordered Dr. Virginia Humphrey to pay $1.9 million in a malpractice suit brought by a father on behalf of his minor daughter who had been misdiagnosed as having been sexually abused (Staff, 1996, October). This led the child to bring allegations of sexual abuse against her father. And, also in San Diego, church day care volunteer, Dale Akiki, acquitted of charges of ritual abuse, settled out-of-court for an estimated $800,000 (Nathan & Snedeker, 1995).

7. Social workers and the profession must also support efforts to pass legislation to allow lawsuits by third parties. Third parties can suffer considerable psychological harm at the hands of therapists who practice scientifically unproven and dangerous therapy or who negligently administer traditional therapy. Recently, two state appellate courts ruled that therapists owe a duty to the person that their patient falsely accuses of sexual abuse as a result of the therapist's misdiagnosis (Staff, 1998, May).

8. The profession should seek passage of legislation to assure that therapists who abuse their clients are subject to criminal prosecution and the same penalties as is any "perpetrator" of abuse.

9. The profession should establish as a standard of practice that those who have a history of having been sexually abused should not practice in the area of sexual abuse. As pointed out by Gardner (1991), many professionals are attracted to the field because they themselves were molested. And many then become validators. This was underscored by Kenneth Lanning, the FBI expert, who noted that these professionals often have a hidden agenda, which is to recruit the children they question "to the brotherhood and sisterhood of the sexually abused" (as quoted in Wexler, 1995, p. 157).

10. Social workers and the profession must seek the passage of legislation which denies absolute immunity to sexual abuse investigators who conduct an incompetent investigation. Most especially, validators must be denied absolute immunity.

11. Those professionals who falsify information or perjure themselves must be subject to criminal prosecution. A first step in this direction was taken in Texas. Here a federal grand jury handed down criminal indictments against two psychiatrists, a psychologist, a social worker, and a hospital administrator for fraud related to the practice of memory techniques (Freyd, 1997, December).

Conclusion

In conclusion, child sexual abuse is both immoral and illegal and should be condemned. But there is another form of abuse-this is the abuse perpetrated by the child savers. This abuse devastates the lives of individuals and families. It too must be condemned.

References

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association of Social Workers, Cleveland, Ohio, November 14, 1996.

Thomas D. Oellerich is Associate Professor, Department of Social Work, at Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, 45701-9601 (oelleric@ohiou.edu).

*****

Excerpt from "Identifying and Dealing with 'Child Savers'", Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, vol. 10, 1998, pp. 1-5, 7.

*****

Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman: Politically Incorrect - Scientifically Correct

*****

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

Wednesday, 20 February 2013

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.

Monday, 18 February 2013

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

Saturday, 16 February 2013

Actuarially False


Sunday, January 27, 2013

Showdown looming over predictive accuracy of actuarials

"Large error rates thwart individual risk prediction

If you are involved in risk assessments in any way (and what psychology-law professional is not, given the current cultural landscape?), now is the time to get up to speed on a major challenge that's fast gaining recognition.

At issue is whether the margins of error around scores are so wide as to prevent reliable prediction of an individual's risk, even as risk instruments show some (albeit weak) predictive accuracy on a group level. If the problem is unsolvable, as critics maintain, then actuarial tools such as the Static-99 and VRAG should be barred from court, where they can literally make the difference between life and death."

"From both clinical and legal perspectives, it is arbitrary and therefore inappropriate to rely solely on a statistical algorithm developed a priori - and therefore developed without any reference to the facts of the case at hand - to make decisions about an individual, especially when the decision may result in deprivation of liberties. Instead, good practice requires a flexible approach, one in which professionals are aware of and rely on knowledge of the scientific literature, but also recognize that their decisions ultimately require consideration of the totality of circumstances - not just the items of a particular test."

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/showdown-looming-over-predictive.html

10/07/2003. Reissued 20/04/05 

Offender Assessment and Sentence Management - OASys

"Q: How accurate is the risk predictor?

A: The risk predictor is what is known as an actuarial or statistical risk assessment tool. The risk predictor has been extensively tested and it has been found to be very reliable. Research on similar tools also suggests that they are at least as accurate as clinical judgements. It should, however, be borne in mind that a score on the scale defines the probability that an offender in general with that history of offending will be reconvicted. It does not define the probability that the specific individual offender will be reconvicted. The scale can only be an aid to judgement and one aspect of risk assessment. Other factors also have to be taken into account when assessing the risk posed by a particular offender."

PSO_2205_offender_assessment_and_sentence_management.doc

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Remarkable experiment proves pull of adversarial allegiance

"Psychologists' scoring of forensic tools depends on which side they believe has hired them.

A brilliant experiment has proven that adversarial pressures skew forensic psychologists' scoring of supposedly objective risk assessment tests, and that this "adversarial allegiance" is not due to selection bias, or preexisting differences among evaluators."

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/remarkable-experiment-proves-pull-of.html

Nigel

Monday, 14 January 2013

DBSabled

The Issue ...

*****

"Construction People Recruitment Solutions Ltd

Labourer

Job description

We require 10 labourers to join our clients team for ongoing contracts. The applicants must have a current CRB check in place. Only people who can provide proof of this by means of a certificate will be considered. The work may involve some travel in the UK but will not usually require lodging away. Interested candidates should forward their details and a copy of their CRB certificate by email to or fax to 01274 531599 or post to the address provided. Our client is extremely busy with work throughout the year."

https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/GetJob.aspx?JobID=718185&JobTitle=Labourer&where=s611sg&rad=20&rad_units=miles&pp=25&sort=rv.dt.di&vw=b&re=4&setype=2&pg=8&AVSDM=

*****

DBS eligibility guidance, v1, December 2012 

DBS checks: eligibility guidance

"Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, a person with a criminal record is not required to disclose any spent convictions unless the position they are applying for, or are currently undertaking, is listed as an exception under the act.

Your Legal Responsibility

Before an organisation considers asking a person to make an application for a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, they are legally responsible for ensuring that they are entitled to ask that person to reveal their conviction history. The information below includes the latest amendments introduced as a result of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and describes occupations that are known as the exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This is not an exhaustive list as some roles included in the list of exceptions obtain conviction information via other means.

The Ministry of Justice has stated that organisations should not insist that a DBS check forms part of a recruitment exercise or bid when tendering for contracts, unless the services provided meet the criteria for an eligible DBS check as defined by the exceptions, as this would breach employment law."

e.g.

Version 1.2, September 2012

CRB Disclosure & Barring: Frequently Asked Questions

"6.1 Can I make it a contractual obligation for my service provider to CRB check their employees and contractors?

Yes, however you cannot ask for all staff to be CRB checked, as the same rules apply to eligibility and it is not necessarily the case that all staff within the contracted organisation will need, or be eligible for a CRB check. You are also not able to ask the contracted organisation for copies of the completed disclosures. A familiar misconception surrounds contractors whose services involve working in council or private dwellings and thus assume that individuals living alone, especially the elderly, are all vulnerable.

If any contracting authority or tenderee is unsure if a position of employment warrants a CRB check they should contact the Customer Service department at CRB ... It should be noted that it is illegal to insist that a CRB check forms part of a tender, unless the services provided meet the criteria for an eligible CRB check as defined by the Exceptions Order of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974."

*****

Spent or Unspent Convictions on CRB (FOIR)

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Nigel

Saturday, 29 December 2012

If The Establishment Breaks The Social Contract ...

Friday, 28 December 2012

Mac Beschäftigung



Thu, Oct, 11 2012

Partnership helps hundreds Leap into work

"So far, more than 40 previously unemployed people have found work at McDonald’s restaurants across the North East, with new recruit Elaine Hall being the 300th success of the Leap project."

26 Feb 2012 00:00 

McDonald's spends £10m of taxpayer's cash from employment scheme without creating a single job

"McDonald's has ­pocketed £10million of public money for an ­apprenticeship scheme ...but has not created a single new job with it.

Instead, the multi-national fast-food giant has spent the whole sum on ­“career progression” for 18,000 existing staff.

A Sunday Mirror investigation has found that among nine other major firms which take the most money from the scheme, ­£20million has been spent to create just 2,559 new jobs."

Thursday 2 August 2012 19.29 BST

The unemployed young academic: facing life on the outside (Guardian)

"I'm called complacent for failing to respond to listed vacancies for checkout operators at Asda."
 
Nigel

Wednesday, 26 December 2012

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

Tuesday, 25 December 2012

The Problem Is Particularly Stark


Published on 12 December 2012 03:30 PM

Over 55s let down by Government’s Work Programme

"New analysis of the Government’s Work Programme by Age UK shows that participants in the scheme aged 55 and over are finding it harder than any other age group to move back into work.

The problem is particularly stark for people aged over 60. The figures show that of the 9,500 people aged over 60 referred by Job Centre Plus to the Work Programme in the first 14 months of the scheme, only 140 people (1.48%) managed to find a job through the scheme.

For people aged 55-59 the rate was 2.79 %. These figures compare to a success rate for 18-24 year olds of 3.78% and (3.75%) for those aged 25-34. The overall rate is 3.56%."

Nigel

Not Casino Dice


Universal Credit Pilot from April 2013

Posted: 19 Dec 2012 at 2.30 pm

UC Pathfinders - who’s included ...

"Here is my latest analysis:

From 29th April 2013 universal credit is due to start in Tameside, Oldham, Wigan and Warrington. The actual areas will be a number of postcodes within those council areas, not necessary corresponding to the council borders.

Not all claimants in these areas will claim universal credit. To be able to claim people must meet the following conditions:

• They must be single
• They must be aged between 18 and 60 years and six months
• They must be a British citizen who has lived in the country for the last two years and has not left for more than four continuous weeks;
• They must not be already on means tested JSA, means tested employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit, child tax credit, working tax credit:
• They must not now be entitled any of those benefits or to contributory JSA or contributory ESA or waiting for a claim to be decided for any of the benefits in these two paragraphs or still have a live appeal about any of these benefits.
• They must not be pregnant,
• They must accept that they are fit for work;
• They must not have had a claim for JSA or which finished in the previous 2 weeks;
• They must not have had a claim for ESA which finished in the last two weeks unless it was decided that they were fit for work;
• They must not be likely to earn more than £330 in the next month if they are aged 25 or over( £270 if under)
• They must not have savings of more than £6,000`
• They must not be homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996;
• They must not be in exempt accommodation;
• They must not be an owner occupier or shared owner;
• They must not be responsible for a child
• They must not be responsible for providing care to someone who needs it (unless this is for a part time job or volunteering activity)
• They must not be about to take up self-employment;
• They must not be in education or training and must be unlikely to take up this in the next month;
• They must not have a formal appointee;
• They must have a national insurance number
• They must have a bank, building society or post office account.

However if they form a couple later after claiming they can claim universal credit together.

So who does that leave?

It looks like “standard” single people who become unemployed and are looking for a job, but are not entitled to contributory job seekers allowance."

*****

24 May 2012

Government names universal credit pathfinder

18th October, 2012

Universal Credit Pathfinder and national rollout

"Welfare reforms that will see a range of benefits lumped together into a single payment are to be introduced in Greater Manchester and Cheshire six months ahead of national roll out.

The Department for Work and Pensions has today announced 1,500 claimants will move onto universal credit across Tameside, Oldham, Wigan and Warrington each month from April 2013."

Tuesday 1 January 2013 18.48 GMT

Universal credit welfare pilot beset by IT failures

"Real-time system required to match employers' payments to employees' bank accounts has 25% failure rate."

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

Saturday, 22 December 2012

A New Battle Begins



*****

To: caxtonhouse.clerkpru@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: FAO Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP
Date: 22/12/12

Dear Sir,

Since your organisation (DWP) does not offer 24 hours support (outrageous, in this day and age), and it is not operational (Jobcentre) until 27/12/12, if falls upon you, as the responsible person, to deal with this issue, particularly in the spirit and operation of 'Digital by Default'.

I carried out all the legal requirements, required of me (and more), under my JSAg (12/5/11 - JSA 1995), over the last cycle, and you have failed to pay me my benefit entitlement (on 19/12/12).

No warnings. No communications. No indications of issues raised. Confirmation of the latter, at interview (A4e - 13/12/12).

Please note this official complaint and ensure that my entitlement is paid, directly (with interest and punitive consideration).

I am sure your Christmas will be merry.

Yours,

Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk

*****

Copy sent to local Jobcentre Plus (24/12/12 - post collection, 28/12/12), for information and action.

*****

Outcome (27/12/12, by telephone, to local JCP)

Not a sanction issue, simply SNAFU - emergency money transfer, within 3 hours.

Nigel

And He Is Not Even Directly-Affected

Published on Dec 20, 2012

Benefit cards, Universal Jobmatch


Nigel

Thursday, 20 December 2012

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

Wednesday, 19 December 2012

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

Get Adobe Flash player

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.