Intereresting article on JSA claimants - massive fraud going on?

heathcote123

deary65 wrote: »

Never going to happen, won't stand up in court!

R v Knowles, ex parte Somersett!(1772)!

The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged

On behalf of Somersett it was argued that while colonial laws might permit slavery, neither the common law of England nor any law made by!Parliament!recognised the existence of slavery, and slavery was therefore illegal.[3]!Moreover, English contract law did not allow for any person to enslave himself, nor could any contract be binding without the person's consent. The arguments thus focused on legal details rather than humanitarian principles. When the two lawyers for Charles Stewart put their case, they argued that property was paramount and that it would be dangerous to free all the black people in England.

Dicta lord Mansfield,

' No man in this kingdom can be subjected to the will of another, without their express consent and agreement, for any man who walks these lands we call England and breaths the air breaths that air, as a free man. Moreover, if this court were to decide otherwise, it would strike a mortal blow to the very soul of are nationhood and deprive our constitution of its vitality, rendering us all to become nothing more than slaves subjected to the will of the state' In other words, it is not the function of the state to decide what peoples bargains should be.
To say or interpret what is in the mind of another, is one thing, to say what should be in the mind of another, that is a very different thing, for that would be to commence a journey down the road to fascism.

I don't think they paid jsa in 1772. It's all a bit overdone anyway isn't it? It's not anything like slavery.

chewmylegoff

heathcote123 wrote: »

I don't think they paid jsa in 1772. It's all a bit overdone anyway isn't it? It's not anything like slavery.

slavery requires an element of obligation. there is no obligation for anyone to sign-on to receive JSA (not that this is relevant to the slavery analogy - but nor is there any obligation for the state to provide benefits to people who can't afford to house, feed and clothe themselves).

as far as i'm concerned the state can attach any qualification criteria it likes to the hand-out of free money.

drwho2011

Regarding work programme.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3715213

He lasted 2 weeks before employer sacked him because everyday he left at 2.30 everyday (shift ends at 5.30pm) to claim his £4 bus fare from the provider, surprisingly the employer wasn't impressed

deary65

heathcote123 wrote: »

I don't think they paid jsa in 1772. It's all a bit overdone anyway isn't it? It's not anything like slavery.

LJ. Laws eloquently expressed the matters in this way:

“Inherent in the idea of the legitimacy of Parliament is the idea of democracy; that idea, whatever else it means, stands for each individual's stake in the legal system. 'one person, one vote' must mean at least that. What would it mean to give each person a vote and yet, at the same time, deny that each person had any right to expect a certain minimal level of treatment? Or, abstractly, the idea of democracy entails that people, by virtue of being people, are entitled to a certain level of respect. We do not deny that Parliament has the right to make laws for us by virtue of the fact, among others, that it is elected by us. If that is so, if Parliament does something contrary to the principles that give it meaning as a legislative body, it is acting ultra vires.”

What The judge is saying: we all have the right to equal treatment under the law, if a person is forced to work then they are entitled to the minimum wage.However i can't see this go unchallenged. As a law it's a none stater.

heathcote123

deary65 wrote: »

What The judge is saying: we all have the right to equal treatment under the law, if a person is forced to work then they are entitled to the minimum wage.However i can't see this go unchallenged. As a law it's a none stater.

Thats just it though, they aren't forced, and if it's for one month in three or something it's probably about minimum wage anyway. Maybe it would be better to make it one or two days a week.

It seems quite a few take the choice not to, so at face value looks a great way of weeding out those working while claiming.

Incidentally, I spend a few hours a month collecting VAT for the government, I don't seem to get paid for that, and if I don't do it, they really will put me in prision. Is that illegal?

deary65

chewmylegoff wrote: »

slavery requires an element of obligation. there is no obligation for anyone to sign-on to receive JSA (not that this is relevant to the slavery analogy - but nor is there any obligation for the state to provide benefits to people who can't afford to house, feed and clothe themselves).

as far as i'm concerned the state can attach any qualification criteria it likes to the hand-out of free money.

Any person with a valid NI number is entitled to claim any legal entitlement, it is part of the consideration paid into the NI fund. That is what insurance means.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Maybe but that is not what this thread is about, or are you saying that they stopped claiming job seekers but claimed all the others?

Its very simple.

If someone has to do SOMETHING, for no increase in reward (benefits), then often it is enough to spur someone on to go and get more for doing something. I.e. Get a job.

heathcote123

drwho2011 wrote: »

Regarding work programme.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3715213

He lasted 2 weeks before employer sacked him because everyday he left at 2.30 everyday (shift ends at 5.30pm) to claim his £4 bus fare from the provider, surprisingly the employer wasn't impressed

Wow that thread is a train wreck. Some people really don't help themselves do they?

Graham_Devon

heathcote123 wrote: »

Thats just it though, they aren't forced, and if it's for one month in three or something it's probably about minimum wage anyway. Maybe it would be better to make it one or two days a week.

It seems quite a few take the choice not to, so at face value looks a great way of weeding out those working while claiming.

Incidentally, I spend a few hours a month collecting VAT for the government, I don't seem to get paid for that, and if I don't do it, they really will put me in prision. Is that illegal?

I'm wondering if carrying out my self assesment is akin to slavery.

heathcote123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm wondering if carrying out my self assesment is akin to slavery.

, you should become a freeman of the land. Though you'd need to grow a beard I think.