are sanctions legal

The_ICT_Engineer

BillJones wrote: »

Er, I read the Times and the FT.

And it's "whose".

Would you care to try again, maybe having an adult help you with your spelling before you post?

All your deranged rants clearly show that you are a tory loving bigot who worships the ground that 'Dimwit Smith' walks on. Your “extremist rhetoric”of these less fortunate than yourself is sort of thing that many have come to aspect of Banker's. Who respects a banker? apart from another banker, the answer is no one.

cattermole

missapril75 wrote: »

I wish I'd noticed this bit earlier. It would have told me I needn't have bothered.

Since it was the DHSS in the 1970s the UK social security department has been using computer systems which were the biggest in Europe

It also appears you've not seen report after report for a couple of decades of losses in the millions because of computers not being up to the task.

You are unaware that the many problems in benefits arise precisely because governments changed benefit rules to "fit" with computer processes rather than something more flexible?

Absolutely spot on, exactly what my friend legal expert on benefits and ex DHSS employee says, they have taken the Human Judgement and common sense out of it. We were far more efficient when everyone used the same paperwork systems. The computer made us less efficient not more, it's a modern myth believed categorically by anyone aged under 40 that computers solve all the problems.

That's a free trade economy for you!

Cornucopia

My take on sanctions is this: it is completely inconsistent with the approach that the UK has taken since the instigation of the Welfare State. The basic contradiction between benefits being a minimum subsistence level of income, and the subsequent withdrawal of same is clear for all to see.

On the other hand, there are many countries in the World where the norm is for unemployed people to receive little or no aid from the State.

Assuming that the country concerned has the wealth to provide welfare benefits, then withdrawing them as a sanction seems inhuman. They should be finding other ways of incentivising people, assuming that is the objective.

Someone would need to challenge a sanctions judgement (probably by Judicial Review) to advance the proposition that the scheme is unlawful. (Something can be deemed unlawful even if there is primary legislation - typically if it is held to be in breach of ECHR). Articles 2 (right to life) and 4 (right against slavery) would appear to have some relevance here.



Interestingly, if you look for "TV Licence legislation" you will find the cupboard somewhat bare. The main activities of TVL are not covered by legislation and it is therefore optional for someone who is legally unlicensed to respond to TVL when they write or call at one's home. Consent to potential breaches of Article 8 of ECHR can be withdrawn entirely, and without prejudice, if that suits.

fed_up_and_stressed

cattermole wrote: »

We were far more efficient when everyone used the same paperwork systems. The computer made us less efficient not more, it's a modern myth believed categorically by anyone aged under 40 that computers solve all the problems.

That's a free trade economy for you!

I'm under 40 and don't believe that at all despite your "anyone" comment.

Computers are only as good as the data put into them.

Btw in my experience representing people, pretty much all the asseors when consulting decision makers guides referred to paper based ones.

What has free trade got to do with interpreting governmental regulations ? Free trade refers to limiting restrictions on imports or exports. Your post makes no sense !

cattermole

I did put a wink re the 40 Fedupandstressed, it was a obviously a generalisation but nevertheless has an element of truth in it.

The free market economy has everything to do with the way particularly Central Government computer systems have evolved. By allowing PC's from Japan to flood the market in the 1980's it led to numerous incompatible software systems and the explosion of the PC market coupled with the arrival of the internet. Prior to that point everyone used the same paperwork systems in the private and public sector, had we had more foresight and not let the Japanese flood the market, (the reverse would never have happened!) we might have been better prepared. Early networked computer and mainframe systems were standard as well prior to that point supplied by ICL in the main to Central Government. We should have developed more compatible systems that integrate and not allowed different government departments to develop incompatible software.

Central government computer systems have to fit the legislation. Why do you think they can't get UC up and running? Millions is wasted every year on trying to get the computer systems to fit. The NHS will probably never be able to fully integrate because of all the different bespoke software being used which is not compatible.

Missmoneypenny was suggesting that computers would solve the problems and clearly they will not for the reasons you give in interpreting the law. In fact the complete opposite applies to sort out Central Government computer systems would take billions.

A little off topic I know but people really do need to understand how bad Central Governments core computer systems are in this country and the history, it is very relevant when we are now faced with legislation being created to fit in with existing computer software!

fed_up_and_stressed

cattermole wrote: »

Central government computer systems have to fit the legislation. Why do you think they can't get UC up and running? Millions is wasted every year on trying to get the computer systems to fit. The NHS will probably never be able to fully integrate because of all the different bespoke software being used which is not compatible.


A little off topic I know but people really do need to understand how bad Central Governments computer systems are in this country and the history, it is very relevant when we are now faced with legislation being created to fit in with computer software!

Your two paragraphs contradict each other .. 1st paragraph you state millions spent trying to get computers to fit legislation. But in the next bit stating "legislation being created to fit with computers" which is it ?

cattermole

fed_up_and_stressed wrote: »

Your two paragraphs contradict each other .. 1st paragraph you state millions spent trying to get computers to fit legislation. But in the next bit stating "legislation being created to fit with computers" which is it ?

It's late, I rewrote it before I read this post as it was a bit unclear.

Actually both they try and improve the software and spend millions on that but they also have to fit legislation in around the existing software. So it's a combination and not me contradicting more the system itself contradicting.

missapril75

Just another point on the odd view that where an appeal tribunal has overturned a sanction it must have been an erroneous one to begin with, what happens when a tribunal has ruled one way while another ruled the opposite way on the same sanction?

Is the appeal tribunal in error? Should they be sacked too?

How do you decide which one is in error? Ask a computer?

What about when a medical patient seeks a second opinion and it differs to that of the first doctor? They're supposed to be working to the same rules. Is the second doctor's decision the correct one?

Next we'll be hearing that an error was made in taking a case to court because the not guilty verdict meant it shouldn't have got there.
:rotfl:

cattermole

In your last example of not guilty verdicts it does sometimes lead to compensation for wrongful arrest and imprisonment. And/or disciplinary action.

A doctor asking for a second opinion from a colleague is seeking further information, making a serious error that led to some kind of loss to the patient again same as above..

pmlindyloo

As interesting as this all is I do not think this is the right forum for this discussion.

If anyone has the time I suggest that they read RedDevil's other threads. Yesterday they spoke about their OH.

I have come to the conclusion that this is not a member seeking help but rather a person who enjoys provoking people into 'discussion' and eventually leading to the usual mudslinging and name calling which gives this forum such a bad name.

I am a great believer in free speech but just suggest that Red Devil spends more time on the Discussion thread.