Interview under caution for pension credit

Guest101

dippy3103 wrote: »

In many circumstances that's very poor advice. If there is something which will proove someone's innocence, is it not best to make it known straight away and bring the matter to a conclusion? Not least because adverse inference can be drawn from not giving the explanation at first chance.

1: If you wish, you may provide a written statement at any time prior to the matter going to court. You can read from a written statement in the interview if you wish, and then refer any questions back to the statement.
Example:
I have a statement I would like to give. <read the statement> I will not be answering any more questions.


2: If there is something so compelling as to prove innocence beyond any doubt, that something will still exist afterwards. It doesn't become 'not valid' just because you don't mention it.


3: 'Adverse Inferences' interesting. Whilst I understand what you're referring to. let's examine it further:


You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you rely on in court. Anything you do say can be given in evidence.


Answering some question, but not others might give the court reason to doubt what you say.


However any evidence that undoubtedly clears your name will still exist after the interview, and is still valid.


The use of the word MAY above, should not be underestimated.

Poppie68

Guest101 wrote: »

There is a good bit of advice, which any competent solicitor will give:


When interviewed under caution - answer no comment to every single question. EVERY SINGLE QUESTION. (that includes how are you? Can you confirm your name? Everything)


You can always provide a written statement afterwards.

That's only good advice if you are guilty, if you have nothing to hide then failing to answer the questions is only going to prolong an investigation and put undue pressure on a claimant

missbiggles1

Poppie68 wrote: »

That's only good advice if you are guilty, if you have nothing to hide then failing to answer the questions is only going to prolong an investigation and put undue pressure on a claimant

It won't do a great deal for your case in a court of law either.

Gold_Shogun

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Shouting and posturing isn't the way to convince people of something, whether the DWP or an individual.

If you went in to the interview showing the attitude you're showing here, I'm not surprised you got a negative reception.

But, hey ho - all the best.:D

I was neither shouting not posturing ... I capitalised circa Five words so you might see them better through your salt-induced blindness.

And for your information ... I never "went in to the interview showing the attitude you're showing here" ... I and my family were DRAGGED out of bed in the wee small hours by a gang of around 20 DWP & Police thugs and each subjected to over 15 Hours of "Third-Degree Style" interrogation on the basis of the DWP's False Claims that I had supposedly killed my Dad OR kept his "death" a secret AND buried my Dad's body in the Garden ... Supposedly so I and my family could allegedly steal my Dad's life savings, pensions, house, and benefits.

As I stated earlier ... Try walking a mile or ten in the last Four Years of hell inflicted upon my family by the DWP's Corrupt Actions BEFORE jumping to FALSE conclusions & running your salty mouth off.

****************

You have now had ample time to read the HMCTS Decisions I referred to & posted ... Which clearly shows that I spoke the Truth and that you jumped to false conclusions with your claims & "pinch of salt" comments.
... So kindly stop trying to deflect from YOUR errors and accept the fact of that DWP corruption in my Dad's case.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bob
.

margaretclare

Amazing.

We've now descended into verbiage and irrelevance.

The decisions referred to, names blacked out, were about Attendance Allowance. The OP's question was about Pension Credit.

These are not alike. AA is non-taxable and non-means-testable. PC is means-tested, which, I believe, was the reason for the OP's query.

Gold_Shogun

Guest101 wrote: »

There is a good bit of advice, which any competent solicitor will give:

When interviewed under caution - answer no comment to every single question. EVERY SINGLE QUESTION. (that includes how are you? [STRIKE]Can you confirm your name?[/STRIKE] Everything)

You can always provide a written statement afterwards.

EXCELLENT advice ... None of my family have ever been arrested before or convicted of any crime whatsoever in the 200+ Life-Years of our combined existence, but it was obvious from the first few minutes of questioning that something corrupt & obscene was going on so we did exactly that.

The DWP & Police Interrogation Teams assigned to each of us made it crystal clear that they were NOT interested in anything we said to prove our innocence, and were ONLY interested in trying to con us into saying things to support their pre-judged view that we were "guilty" as far as they were concerned.

To any "unbelievers" ... I strongly recommend you peruse these links, as you never know when or if you too may get innocently caught up in DWP or Police Corruption and Malfeasance.
They're american-based links, but the principles apply equally to over here in the UK :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

http://www.kirkpiccione.com/10-reasons-not-talk-police/

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=don't+talk+to+the+police&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=ssl

dippy3103

Police interrogation teams?? Wow.

Guest101

Do people actually believe that these interviews are offered for any reason other than to gather evidence to assist the prosecution.

As if there's an actual conversation that basically say: I'm fairly sure they're guilty, my investigation so far hasn't given me reason to think otherwise, but I'll take them at their word in the interview and believe whatever they say?!

If you believe that these interviews are to establish innocence... The I have great news, I represent the bank of Nigeria and the U.S. 1,000,000 U.S. Waiting for you...

Gold_Shogun

margaretclare wrote: »

Amazing.

We've now descended into verbiage and irrelevance.

The decisions referred to, names blacked out, were about Attendance Allowance. The OP's question was about Pension Credit.

These are not alike. AA is non-taxable and non-means-testable. PC is means-tested, which, I believe, was the reason for the OP's query.

The OP's post was in relation to the DWP / LA suspending/stopping SEVERAL of her Mum's benefits on the supposed ground of residence in multiple locations (= Liverpool, Watford?, and Ireland).

My response was and is directly relevant to the question of UK LAW on "Ordinary Residence in Multiple Locations" .... and the UK Law and Legal Principles are the same IRRESPECTIVE of the benefit ... and apply equally to most (or possibly even al)l UK benefits such as Attendance Allowance, DLA, PIP, Carer's Allowance, IS, ESA, PC, State Pension, Winter Fuel Payments, Xmas Bonus, etc, etc, etc.

It is the DWP that corruptly tries to "ignore" or "work around" those Legal Principles & Law to suit their own agenda.

You clearly have either not read the HMCTS Upper Tribunal decision which I posted yesterday, OR you have failed to understand it. ... Here it is again, and kindly read or re-read it focusing on the OP's Query of "Ordinary Residence in Multiple Locations" rather than the irrelevant name of the individual benefit under appeal in THAT case.

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3939

.

Gold_Shogun

dippy3103 wrote: »

Police interrogation teams?? Wow.

Yes = DWP & Police Joint Interrogation Teams.

And your point is ??? ... Do you naively think such things don't exist ?