Saturday, December 19, 2009

Letter to the manager of Highgate Jobcentre

This morning Declan wrote to the manager of Highgate Jobcentre regarding our sixth interview in six weeks at the jobcentre – we were notified on 5 November that Declan and I had been selected to be interviewed on six consecutive Thursdays about the jobs we are applying for. Every week there has been something. Three weeks ago, the jobcentre insisted that Declan apply for two jobs that they selected for him, neither of which he would have entertained the thought of applying for (see blog of 2 December “NAC website is back”). The week before last, the interviewer wanted to know the names of the employers we were going to contact the following week (see previous blog “We are cut off from the internet”), and on Thursday Declan discovered that a history was being created against his name on job applications he has never made!

Fortunately Declan retains a record of all the jobs he and I have applied for since NAC Honorary Associate Dr. Jim Fetzer, Distinguished McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, found us a roof over our heads on 13 July (see blog of 12 July “Police threaten us with physical force at the place we sleep, Salters”). Dr. Fetzer has been funding the NAC website since 4 February (see, for example, blog of 26 July “We are interviewed on The Real Deal by Jim Fetzer”).

This is Declan's registered letter to the Manager of Highgate Jobcentre, Patrice Mulligan, under the Data Protection Act 1998, a copy of which he also sent by registered post to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Yvette Cooper:

                                                         BY REGISTERED POST

Dear Mrs. Mulligan,

Data Protection Act 1998, Subject Access Request

I hereby make a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 for a copy of my history section in your Labour Market System (LMS) that lists ten job applications that Highgate Jobcentre Plus has registered against my name.

On 17 December, I discovered during my advisory interview with Najmin (“not obliged to provide surname”) that two phone calls I made to prospective employers the week previous had been registered by her as job applications against my name in your LMS, and my three job applications for the same period omitted, my protestations notwithstanding. According to Najmin, the record details could not be rectified, amended or completed.

When I requested a copy of the ten job applications that Highgate Jobcentre Plus has registered against my name to date, a floor manager was called. I was told that I would have to direct my request to the manager in writing.

In reference to my history section in your LMS, I can confirm that during my advisory interview on 26 November one of your personal advisers told me to apply for two jobs she handpicked for me. I am currently looking for a solicitor who might be able to tell (a) whether your office is acting lawfully by directing me to apply for specific jobs on threat of termination, and (b) what can be done to prevent recurrence of this form of unfair treatment.

I also confirm from a perusal of the job applications registered against my name that your records in respect of this subject access request go back to the reinstatement on 17 July 2009 of my part of my joint claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). Notice, in particular:

* My joint claim JSA was terminated on 27 September 2006 because I did not “sign on” two days before I was due to do so on 29 September 2006.

* My wife and I have been sleeping rough on the streets of London for more than 2 1/2 years, from 3 November 2006 to 13 July 2009.

* I exhausted the appeals process from the street: my case was dismissed by the High Court (Judicial Review), Court of Appeal and European Court of Human Rights in spite of the fact that I was denied the internal appeal process by procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.

* My joint claim JSA was not fully reinstated until 9 October 2009 – almost three months after we gained access to a roof over our heads – because my wife’s National Insurance number was "lost" from the Department of Work and Pension's database.

Yours sincerely,
Declan Heavey

cc The Rt. Hon. Yvette Cooper MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (by registered post)

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

We are cut off from the internet

In the previous blog “Problems with internet access”, I reported that on Sunday I couldn’t connect with either my laptop or Declan’s notebook to the access point which our live-in landlady Belinda McKenzie gave me back in July to access her broadband network – see an article in the New Statesman stating that Belinda’s house “doubles as the hub of the British and Irish 9/11 Truth Campaign” here.

It turns out that Belinda's two other access points (McKenzie-1 and moj) are working fine, and Belinda concurs that only forces from outside the house could have disconnected ours (Guest). Moreover, our bandwidths continue to be squeezed almost to death in public libraries, whether we are on a library computer, my laptop or Declan's notebook (see, for example, blog of 26 October “Internet access at the British Library”). It seems little consolation that only two weeks ago Google finally removed the “Attack Site” warnings that on 13 November they posted on every single page of the NAC website (see blog of 2 December “NAC website is back”).

On Thursday we have our sixth interview in six weeks at our local Highgate Jobcentre Plus – the jobcentre notified us on 5 November that Declan and I had been selected to be interviewed on six consecutive Thursdays about the jobs we are applying for. Every week it is something. Two weeks ago, the jobcentre actually insisted that Declan apply for two jobs that they selected for him, neither of which he would have entertained the thought of applying for (see blog of 2 December “NAC website is back”). Last week the interviewer wanted to know the names of the employers we were going to contact the following week! This request is quite amazing because it defies the logic of the jobcentre's policy that “each time you attend, we will talk with you about what you have been doing to find work” (emphasis added).



We have some history with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), of which this jobcentre is a part: We came to England in 2003 and for two years attempted to get NAC up and running; we went on benefits in July 2005; the DWP terminated Declan's joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance on 27 September 2006 because he did not “sign on” two days before he was due to do so on 29 September. Declan exhausted the appeals process from the street, having been denied the internal appeal process by procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority (the DWP). His case was dismissed by the High Court (Judicial Review), Court of Appeal and European Court of Human Rights (see blog of 21 October 2008 “European Court of Human Rights declares application inadmissible”).

Goodness knows what this Thursday will throw up! Perhaps the forces that have cut us off from the internet are connected to those forces that put us to the street for more than 2 1/2 years (from 3 November 2006 to 13 July 2009)!

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Problems with internet access

In the previous blog, “NAC website is back”, I reported that Google finally removed the “Attack Site” warnings that on 13 November they posted on every single page of the NAC website – two days after NAC Honorary Associate Dr. Jim Fetzer paid our web host SiteGround $150 to clean up any malicious code, as well as to give maximum (“99.99%”) protection to the site; Dr. Fetzer funds the NAC website and found us by some sort of miracle a roof over our heads on 13 July (see blog of 12 July “Police threaten us with physical force at the place we sleep, Salters”).

Well, today we can't access the internet from our flat with either my laptop or Declan's notebook! Last July, our kind live-in landlady Belinda McKenzie - see an article in the New Statesman stating that her house “doubles as the hub of the British and Irish 9/11 Truth Campaign” here – provided me with the details I needed to access her broadband network through an access point called “Guest”. However, we were no sooner interviewed by Dr. Fetzer on his radio show The Real Deal than we lost the connection for over three months. Then, as I explained in the blog of 11 November “Letter from The Queen”, internet access was restored out of the blue.





Now it seems it's back to public libraries, where we have previously had our bandwidths squeezed almost to death, whether we were on a library computer, my laptop or Declan's notebook (see, for example, blog of 26 October “Internet access at the British Library”).

I actually wanted to ask Belinda if her other two access points (McKenzie-1 and moj) are working fine but she has had visitors all day. Tomorrow we have to pay the rent so I will perhaps get the chance to ask her then. Hopefully it is just a technical anomaly! Anyway, Declan is going to be very busy all week: he is continuing to call into solicitors' offices with his letter of introduction from Dr. Fetzer regarding the Department for Work and Pensions (the letter is published in the previous blog), as well as visiting mosques to help Dr. Fetzer recruit a third speaker and an appropriate venue for an international conference on “Debunking the 'War on Terror'”.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

NAC website is back

As I said in the previous blog "NAC website is still blocked", our local jobcentre, Highgate Jobcentre Plus, notified us on 5 November that Declan and I had been selected to be interviewed on six consecutive Thursdays about the jobs we are applying for – Highgate Jobcentre Plus is part of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Since then, we have had eyes at the back of our heads because this is the same department that put us to the street in November 2006, and kept us there until NAC Honorary Associate Dr. Jim Fetzer by some sort of miracle found us a roof over our heads on 13 July (see blog of 12 July “Police threaten us with physical force at the place we sleep, Salters”), more than 2 1/2 years later.

I also explain in that blog that our benefits were terminated in November 2006 because Declan did not “sign on” two days before he was in fact due to do so (Declan exhausted the appeals process from the street; see blog of 21 October 2008 “European Court of Human Rights declares application inadmissible”); that a few months prior to being unceremoniously put to the street, we had our benefits suspended because the DWP lost our address (it took the High Court order published in the previous blog to sort that one out); and when we came off the street, it took three months to reinstate our benefits because the DWP lost my National Insurance number off their database (see Declan's letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the blog of 7 October “After a huge run-around, the Department for Work and Pensions denies me a Crisis Loan”)!

At the end of Declan's one-hour long interview last Thursday, he was told by the interviewer to apply for two jobs she hand-picked for him. Neither job would Declan have entertained the thought of applying for, but he was told to apply for them both nonetheless. The interviewer then tore up both job descriptions, refused to sign off on the jobs Declan did apply for the previous week (another first), and then, to add insult to injury, I guess, proceeded to butcher his “sign on” card rather than provide him with the standard printout of his appointment for tomorrow.



Declan was so taken aback by the rough treatment (it would be a understatement to say the interviewer was both bullish and rude throughout the interview) that since last Thursday he has been calling into solicitors' offices with this letter of introduction from Dr. Fetzer:

Solicitor
Benefits Specialist
London, UK

To whom it may concern:

Declan Heavey and his wife, Lola, are in desperate straits because they have encountered enormous obstacles in obtaining benefits to which they are lawfully—and, in my judgment, morally—entitled. They suspect, as I believe, that their ongoing abuse at the hands of the authorities (which is continuing to this very day) is almost certainly related to a website that they maintain and I fund, which deals with controversial issues. Notice, in particular:

* They have been living homeless for more than 2 1/2 years
* They have only rather recently gained access to a roof over their heads
* They are being directed to apply for specific positions on threat of termination
* The suspension or termination of benefits would return them to the streets
* They—and I—strongly suspect their ongoing abuse is politically motivated

Declan and Lola have documented the violations of their rights at many levels in her blog, "Network of those Abused by Church Blog". They are looking for someone who might represent them pro bono because of the importance of this case. What may make their situation of more than ordinary significance is that we believe their difficulties are motivated by the desire to suppress or otherwise undermine their exercise of freedom of speech by means of the website we maintain at religionandmorality.net. If you visit the site, you will see that we address many controversial issues, from the abuses inflicted by religious entities to 7/7, 9/11 and the “war on terror”.

The political ramifications of all this may be crucial. We are currently in the process of organizing a symposium on “Debunking the ‘War on Terror’” that would feature, as speakers, Elias Davidsson from GER, me from the US, and a prominent Muslim speaker from the UK. We are going to accent the abuse of human rights, where I have now interviewed Yvonne Ridley about her experiences, which is archived at http://tinyurl.com/yaxu4ql. It would not surprise me in the least if their current difficulties are intended—at least in part—to subvert our current efforts.

In my opinion, treatment to which they are being subjected appears to involve coordination by several layers of authorities to deny them benefits to which they are entitled. It bothers me tremendously that the Crown should be engaged—directly or indirectly—in such corrupt conduct. I have suggested to them that surely there must be at least one solicitor in the whole of England who will oppose this abuse and stand for what is right and just.

We would be especially appreciative if you might be able to tell (a) whether they are acting lawfully by directing the Heaveys to apply for specific jobs on threat of termination and (b) what can be done to prevent recurrence of this form of unfair treatment. We believe that indications of interest in their case by a solicitor or someone with legal standing may be enough to straighten this out forthwith. They are being denied basic rights and stand in urgent need of counsel. Is there any chance you might be able to assist them in any way? I would be glad to discuss all of this either via email at jfetzer@d.umn.edu or even by phone, if that would be preferable.

With appreciation,

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

McKnight Professor Emeritus,
University of Minnesota Duluth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Scholars Site: http://911scholars.org
Home phone: -------------
Cell phone: -------------

Google has finally removed the “Attack Site” warnings that on 13 November they put on every single page of the NAC website – two days after Dr. Fetzer paid our web host SiteGround $150 to clean up any malicious code, as well as to give maximum (“99.99%”) protection to the site. On 28 November, the site was finally cleared of these warnings, but only after Dr. Fetzer once again emailed Google earlier in the day with the following (see graphic here):

What is going on here? We notified you that SiteGround had given us a clean bill of health, which cost us $150. Yesterday, religionandmorality.net was cleared of these baseless warning signs. Today, we find them at "Join", "Authors", "Donate", and "Breaking News". This is quite ridiculous. How often do we have to go through this? We would appreciate having an explanation. It appears to us that Google is abusing its position for political purposes.