Saturday, 31 January 2015

Theres a lot written about Sanctions.. a bit more..

I Read this about sanctioned people still required to do Work Programme: (On ) : -
"Can you imagine the torment that they feel? The feeling of constantly being hungry and cold? The workfare placement is torture to them. They won’t have much strength to do the work required. If they aren’t doing their work to a so called standard then the workfare provider can report them to the Jobcentre who can sanction them again on top of their sanction."


And theres been many commentaries decrying any COMPARISONS to enforced work/ slavery? 

Think on this: In * a place* in europe, in WW2 A V2 rocket factory had a work-camp allocated to it. Inadequate food was given. But not only did they work at the factory - they were asked FOR NO REASON to carry rocks each day for a 1/4 mile walk. Many died.

The scenario described above - Its not far from forced to do work programme whilst hungry, weak, demoralised, punished.

Both scenarios remove freedom. Both are Punitive. Both extremely unhealthy.

Id say more. But Really I think point made.

Some , like IDS, say sanctions drive compliance? No they drive Destitution.

Another Lie From The Green Party exposed - BY SUE JONES

 Sue Writes: ...

Just to clarify, Rachel Reeves has NEVER said she will be "tougher on welfare." Those saying that she did are lying. She issued a statement shortly after being misquoted. It was Natalie Bennett who perpetuated that misquote too (See here - ).

What Rachel actually said was "tougher on the CAUSES of high welfare spending - such as low wages, high private sector rents, private company outsourcing - especially that of IDS, his vanity projects have cost us millions , paying for failed private company contracts - and unemployment. Here is the Hansard record where this was clarified to Caroline Lucas too, so the Greens should stop shamefully lying about the misquote.
In the middle of crucial debate about the WCA and the plight of our disabled people, initiated by the WOW campaign, Lucas lost all of my respect when she chose political point scoring instead of constructive debate and said this:

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green); I was disappointed that Rachel Reeves, on taking up her post as shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, used the opportunity of her first interview to say that she would be tougher than the Tories on people on benefits.

Kate Green (Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions); Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West did not say that. She said that she would be tougher on welfare spending, not on people on benefits.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East, Labour)

Does the hon. Lady agree that there are some forms of welfare spending that we should bring down? In my view, one of those is the excessive amount that is paid to private landlords through housing benefit. I am certainly in favour of reducing that form of welfare spending. Is she not?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green)

I am very much in favour of that if the hon. Lady wants to put it under the heading of welfare spending... Source: Hansard. The link -

See - 27 Feb 2014 : Column 457 1.29 pm, on the 2nd page of the Hansard record.

Nonetheless the GP has continued to misquote Reeves, to my disgust, using negative campaigning and smear tactics akin to the Tories to promote their own party.

Wednesday, 28 January 2015

Selection of Helps?

Today looked through two things. at great depth as they both on surface seemed worthy exploring the help requests.

The first one..... although stated as concrete, came down to nothing I could constructively do or suggest to get the resolution that the person wanted. So it was something I wouldnt try at.

The second one, someone had tried to put me into helping them so it wasnt them doing the "work" and it was full of contradiction, looked very devious and I wasnt therefore going to delve into that one either.

There are times to say NO!

But I looked into both. Maybe I should refine my gut even further....

Ah well.

Saturday, 17 January 2015

(updated) Peer Review Info / Rhetoric and Resistance of The Govt to admit it.

I wrote to Sir Gerald Kaufman, my MP

 > Regarding an outstanding as yet undisclosed report on DWP investigation of 60 Welfare Related Deaths.

I understand the DWP told the Guardian it had no plans to disclose these internal reports.

It is held that the DWP intends to invoke section 36, which is designed to protect information whose disclosure under FOI would, or would be likely to, prejudice “the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility” of ministers; would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, or the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation; would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.

Im sure this is a self protectionist measure too far . I know you share my disgust of Welfare Reforms and its antisocial nature.

Will you raise this question, over disclosure, of the results at Prime Ministers Questions next week? Im sure all Ministers would be interested to hear the PMs reply.

I think We need to seriously expose this governments lack of application and service to the general public.

Many Thanks

That was because many people are interested in ALL the affects of Welfare Reform, as am I. It is having catastrophic effects on people and communities. Television programmes are using suffering as what some people call poverty porn, which doesnt actually enforce a social conscience, but reinforces a disgust and scum feeling, an anti representation of reality, that shows the RHETORIC of a non caring Govt, and reinforces their ideals of Worthless Scroungers.

The rhetoric is poison.

YOU COULD be out of work next week? Or become ill or sick at any time.

Do you ask your MP about social issues? Rhetoric?  Dont give up.



 Excellent reply from my MP about the DWP . "thank you for your letter 17 the January. This is indeed a very disturbing situation and I shall follow it up. I do not know whether I will get a chance to raise it at Prime Ministers Questions, but I shall write to you as soon as I have any news" can't be fairer than that!


Emailed MP courteously as follows:

Thank you for your attention to my earlier briefing.
I note it wasnt possible today for you to raise issue at PMQs
It is an issue that has disturbed me. And I appreciate any highlighting of this you can make in the most public manner possible.

Many Thanks


My MP elicited this reply from IDS ...

12 february 2015
Dear Gerald ((edit: again note lack of protocol , Its Sir Gerald))

Thankyou for your letter 19th Jan on behalf of ((your constituent)) regarding Peer Review Information .

The Department for Work And Pensions (DWP) is currently handling several Freedom of Information requests regarding the release of Peer Review information.

The DWP is required to consider the relevant legislation before releasing information. The Department is currently at this stage and will provide appropriate responses to the Freedom Of Information requests in due course.

The RT Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP

-------- This i fear shows that indeed the intent is to use a section 36. And only scratches at an answer.


This from Samuel Miller ...

t's official: The DWP has just informed me that it will NOT release the 49 internal reviews of benefit-related deaths, even with the personal information redacted. (Disclosing the content of these reviews, even in anonymised and summarised form, may still allow individuals to be identified, states the DWP) The information requested is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in Section 44 of the Act and Section 36 (2) (b) and (c) of the Freedom of Information Act.

FoI ref

Dear Mr Miller,

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request received on 24/11/2014. You asked for:-
With regard to this article (
60-benefit-related-deaths-since-2012/) published online by Disability News Service, I am
writing to request that the 60 peer reviews, conducted by the DWP following the death of a
customer since February 2012, be mailed to my home address, which is below my signature

Please be mindful that I am only requesting the peer reviews themselves and not the personal
files of benefit claimants, so the Data Protection Act should NOT be triggered by this FOI
request. If necessary, please feel free to redact personal information contained in the 60 peer
review files, which may violate the Act, but NOT the analysis and any conclusions.

DWP response
We wrote to you on 21 January and again on 17 February explaining that we needed more
time to assess the public interest because the information you seek engages an exemption
which requires the public interest to be considered.

I should like to advise that although the Department had conducted 60 Peer Reviews in total
by the time it responded to an FOI request with the figure you have quoted, in fact only 49 of
these reviews had been conducted in circumstances where the claimant had died. The
Department regrets the error in its previous response on this point.

I confirm that the Department holds the information you have requested but it is being withheld
as it falls under the exemption in Section 44 of the Act and Section 36 (2) (b) and (c) of the
Freedom of Information Act

The exemption at section 44 of the FoI Act

Section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act (SSSA) 1992 makes it an offence for
anyone who is employed in social security administration to disclose without lawful authority
any information which he acquired in the course of that employment and which relates to a
particular person. All the personal information contained in a Peer Review report is captured
by this provision.

Disclosing the content of these reviews, even in anonymised and summarised form, may still
allow individuals to be identified.

This triggers the FoI exemption at section 44 of the FoI Act which recognises existing statutory bars to disclosure contained in other statutes. Section 44 is an absolute exemption which means that there is no requirement to consider the public interest test in such cases.

The exemptions at section 36(2)(b) and (c) of the FoI Act

This exemption covers information which if released would, or would be likely to, prejudice the free and frank provision of advice or which would otherwise, or would be likely otherwise, to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

This is because disclosing the recommendations contained in these reviews, even in anonymised format, would be likely to inhibit the candour of their authors and so undermine their purpose.

This exemption requires the public interest for and against disclosure to be balanced. In this instance we concluded that the public interest weighed in favour of withholding the requested information because of the risks and harm identified above.

If you have, any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely
DWP Central FoI Team

so they used 44 and 36

Sunday, 11 January 2015

Attendees of #jesuischarlie march ....

Leaders at #JeSuisCharlie PARIS 11th January 2015

Now I was going to blog about the hijacking of Vox Populi, or something about hypocracy.

But then I came across 21 tweets about the attendees at a march defending free speech.

So rather than have to duplicate, myself, I'll use THEIR voice on my blog.

Thanks to tweeter Daniel Wickham ...

1) King Abdullah of Jordan, which last year sentenced a Palestinian journalist to 15 years in prison with hard labour Jordan

2) Prime Minister of Davutoglu of Turkey, which imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world Turkey

3) Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forced killed 7 journalists in Gaza last yr (second highest after Syria) Israel

4) Foreign Minister Shoukry of Egypt, which as well as AJ staff has detained journalist Shawkan for around 500 days Egypt 

5) Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, which last year jailed a journalist for "insulting a government servant" Russia 

 6) Foreign Minister Lamamra of Algeria, which has detained journalist Abdessami Abdelhai for 15 months without charge Algeria 

 7) The Foreign Minister of the UAE, which in 2013 held a journo incommunicado for a month on suspicion of MB links UAE

8) Prime Minister Jomaa of Tunisia, which recently jailed blogger Yassine Ayan for 3 years for "defaming the army" Tunisia 

9) The PMs of Georgia and Bulgaria, both of whom have a record of attacking & beating journalists

10) The Attorney General of the US, where police in Ferguson have recently detained and assaulted WashPost reporters USA 

 11) Prime Minister Samaras of Greece, where riot police beat & injured two journalists at a protest in June last year Greece

12) Sec-Gen of NATO, who are yet to be held to account for deliberately bombing and killing 16 Serbian journos in '99 NATO 

13) President Keita of Mali, where journalists are expelled for covering human rights abuses Mali

14) The Foreign Minister of Bahrain, 2nd biggest jailer of journos in the world per capita (they also torture them) Bahrain

15) Sheikh Mohamed Ben Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar, which jailed a man for 15 ys for writing the Jasmine poem Qatar 

 16) Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who had several journalists jailed for insulting him in 2013 Palestine

17) Prime Minister Cerar of Slovenia, which sentenced a blogger to six months in prison for "defamation" in 2013 Slovenia 

 18) Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland, where "blasphemy" is considered a criminal offense Ireland 

 19) Prime Minister Kopacz of Poland, which raided a magazine to seize recordings embarrassing for the ruling party Poland

20) PM Cameron of the UK, where authorities destroyed documents obtained by The Guardian and threatened prosecution UK 

 21) Saudi ambassador to France. The Saudis publicly flogged blogger @raif_badawi for "insulting Islam" on Friday Saudi Arabia

All the links are to articles the tweeter provided that are in public domain.
I understand this is one persons take on hypocracy of attending a free speech march.

Friday, 9 January 2015

A brief tight view of Customer Experience Management.

Customer EXPERIENCE. : How people perceive their interactions. With a thing. That exists. See?

Key role of C.E.M. is achieve maximum lifetime profit from the entire customer/ user base .

That means a lot more than just its words.

 Usually anything C.E.M. does must improve profits, its central to what it IS.

Its VERY close to but distorted from VFM. Where traditional output and outcome is replaced with Focused lower complaints more Right First Time and ultimate outcome = zero or positive impact on profit.

 Usually C.E.M. can say - This better. Obviously it costs this to do. But if return isnt there ( accts dont like the sums, say) then it wont get done. Remember C.E.M. is a corporate revenue generator / loss avoider as a function.

C.E.M. can justify anything that has zero profit impact. Or a +ve one.

-ve one will mean mostly mean NO.

UNLESS -ve for Retention of contract/ avoidance of penalties/ retaining supply chain/ keeping customers /as a matter of public image etc is ok as is mitigation and loss prevention justified.

Even a -VE may be assessed for long term return and be dismissed. 

Theres loads more to it. This is only a part of what C.E.M. does.

Thursday, 1 January 2015

some good friends of mine ...

Some good friends of mine need some work in their back garden. Basic slabs / crazy paving.. to enable the space .

Theyve helped me many times and Im really miffed I cant help on this issue for them .

So will you go onto twitter and speak to @missnfranchised

Materials / crash space/ food all will be there for respondents accepted to do the work.

This is where social side of people really should shine.

Can you help?

Its for wonderful selfless couple whos first thought is help others.
They need some now . 

Worcestershire is location