Written by my good friend Darren Lynch who deserves a mention for his tireless work in helping to bring out the truth Thank You Darren. https://www.facebook.com/Grumblywuth
Sent to: Andrew Langdon
Subject: Your Independent article
Dear Mr Langdon,
I applaud you for standing up to the government’s insistence upon removing access to the law from UK citizens. I do, also, have a question though:
Since before May 2010, the UK government has been stripping benefits from needy and vulnerable people, which is contrary to what the law says they need to live upon as a minimum income. This has been facilitated by well-proven and documented misreporting by their Work Capability Assessment contractor, Atos Healthcare, which has also had the effect of costing the taxpayer millions of pounds more than the basic £100 million a year contract payment, in appeals which would not have become necessary had Atos reported correctly in the first place. Falsification of a medical record is, as far as I am aware, an offence under the law. If a document purports to comment upon a person’s fitness, or otherwise, for work it is, by definition, a medical statement. A medical statement cannot, in any dictionary definition, be classed as anything other than a medical record. Atos and the DWP deny that the documents, produced as reports at the end of each WCA, are such.
It is also an offence under the law to impersonate a doctor yet, daily, completely unqualified DWP personnel are making rulings upon people’s fitness to either work or receive benefits, based upon the aforementioned Atos reports. The dictionary I have says that impersonation involves “giving the impression of being” or “behaving in a similar manner to.” In order to make medical decisions, these DWP clerks are “behaving in a similar manner to” qualified medical personnel, and they are causing distress, anxiety, hardship, suffering and even death as a result.
Atos Healthcare’s original remit with the WCA was to weed out fraudsters from the system. They have now been “weeding out these fraudsters” for three and a half years of the ConDem government’s term in office, and actually began doing the job some time before that. It suggests strongly to me that either Atos has either not managed to complete the job assigned to them, or that there is corruption in senior levels of government and that the constant re-assessment of people already examined has no other purpose than that of swelling Atos’ corporate bank account. People who are minus limbs do not, whatever Esther McVey thinks, ever grow them back. People with mental health issues can obtain some control over them via voluntarily ingested medicines, but they are never cured.
Since before May 2010, people have been committing suicide because of the loss – or fear of loss – of their benefit incomes to the WCA. Since the introduction of the Bedroom Tax, there have been several reports of suicides linked directly to that tax. Prior to the death of Mrs Stephanie Bottrill, Iain Duncan Smith was told of this direct link by Michael Meacher and others via a debate in the House of Commons Chamber. It has been reported to the police that this information is well-known to Duncan Smith, yet the policy continues. I have suggested to the London Metropolitan Police Service that, in knowing of the link yet continuing the policy which has, since the notification mentioned, caused further suicides, Duncan Smith could be justifiably accused in procuring those additional suiicides, contrary to the Suicide Act of 1961. The LMPS has failed to act.
Sanctioning of people (withdrawing their benefit income for a period of time) for the slightest excuse is illegal. Again, it falls contrary to what the law says a person needs to live on. Threat of sanction is used to compel people to take up Mandatory Work Activity, which is often unsuited to their abilities. It is the equivalent of keeping a person in servitude, as the worker receives no additional reward for the activity, which reward should be reasonably expected from a government that claims to be “making work pay.” The only people to benefit from it are the business providers, some of whom – such as Poundland – have provably sacked workers in order to take on MWA assignees. Earlier this year a Polish national was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for keeping several of his fellow countrymen in servitude. They worked, he profited. The parallel is clear for anyone to see, yet the LMPS has failed to act against any member of the DWP for this offence either.
Earlier this year a man was convicted for misuse of a computer in Kent, for posting material “likely to cause anxiety or offence to a third party” contrary to the Communications Act of 2003. Something to do with the young soldier who was hacked down, if I remember correctly. Since May 2010, The Sun and Daily Mail newspaper have repeatedly, and with apparently unfettered delight, been posting such material onto their websites which are not encrypted and therefore open to the public’s view. Public domain, in other words. The LMPS, into whose area of jurisdiction the head offices of these publications fall, has failed to act to stop the offence.
Since taking office, this government has caused (officially) an additional 330,000 children to be forced into poverty. That constitutes child abuse. The LMPS has failed to act to stop it.
Since taking office, this government has compelled myself and others to conduct activities which have caused us additional pain and suffering. Actually, in my own case they failed to compel the activity because I have an exceptionally good GP and was able to tell Atos to Foxtrot Oscar and make it stick. Other disabled people are not so lucky and I see their personal reports appear daily in Facebook groups dedicated to the support and advice of disabled and unemployed people.
Anyway, the government is denying people access to legal representation because then the government can – it believes – continue to breach the UK’s laws without fear of reprisal. There are two ways this can go:
1. Either the people can be given some other means to access legal representation, or
2. We can take the law into our own hands.
The second option, I think you will agree, is likely to be messy and, besides, today’s lamp posts are nowhere near as strongly constructed as the old ones. Hanging MP’s from them is likely to cause considerable damage, to the detriment of motorists, pedestrians and local taxpayers alike.
So, the first option would be preferable. We have so-called “no gain, no pain” Solicitors for such issues as accidents at work. Why do your junior colleagues not sit up and realise that here, in the flagrant abuse of human rights by this unelected government, is a huge, untapped market which could cost the UK government an absolute mint? Far more than Legal Aid ever did, in fact…
Can I leave this for you and, perhaps, your colleagues of the Bar to consider?
With best wishes,