The Ha’Penny & The Gingerbread by Les May

INFAMY, Infamy, they’ve all got it in for me! is a line by Julius Caesar (Kenneth Williams) from the 1964 comedy film Carry on Cleo. But it sums up the response of recent Israeli governments and their apologists whenever they are confronted with questions about their behaviour in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).

Apartheid is recognized as a crime against humanity in the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (“Apartheid Convention”) and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which also sets out the crime against humanity of persecution.

Because the state of Palestine is a party to both the Rome Statute and the Apartheid Convention the International Criminal Court (ICC) ruled in February 2021, that it has jurisdiction over serious international crimes committed in the entirety of the OPT, including East Jerusalem, which would include the crimes against humanity of apartheid or persecution committed in that territory. In March 2021, the ICC announced the opening of a formal investigation into the situation in Palestine.

On 27 April the organisation Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a 213 page report which claims that the overarching Israeli government policy to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians authorities amounts to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.

Predictably the response of the apologists for the Israeli government has been to both reject the report and to try to muddy the water by claiming that organisations which try to bring pressure on Israel to change its policies are intent on denying its right to exist.

Legal measures such as those we may see from the ICC are necessarily directed against individuals within a state, not against the state itself, so it is difficult to see how this is a credible argument if say the Israeli Prime Minister were tried in his absence. If found guilty it would be for other states to decide what sanctions should be place on the individual concerned. It would also be a massive embarrassment for the state of Israel.

Such a case could only meaningfully be brought so long as Israel remains as the Occupying Power in Palestine and continues its annexation of East Jerusalem, which is itself prohibited by international law. If Israel does not want to be seen as a country whose rulers could face the ignominy of being declared guilty of crimes against humanity it has the option of simply ending its occupation and allowing a functioning state of Palestine to come into being.

But Israel wants both the Ha’Penny and the Gingerbread; it wants to continue its occupation and be given a Persilschein.

The HRW report is called A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution. It is available on WWW.

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

Amnesty International India has to shut its offices!

Hi John,

Since 2018, Indian authorities have harassed and targeted human rights defenders and organisations in the country.

Unfortunately, Amnesty International India was forced to close its offices yesterday. With its bank accounts frozen by the Indian Government, sadly staff have had to be let go.

This shocking and shameful act by the Indian Government, has forced us to stop the crucial human rights work that Amnesty International India was leading. Vital research on the human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as a report looking at the conduct of the Delhi police following riots in February, which claimed the lives of at least 53 people, have been affected.

However, this does not mean an end to our firm commitment to continue to support the struggle for human rights in India.

Many of our colleagues have lost their jobs this week and we’re looking at ways to support them. We will also continue our call on the Indian Government to end its shameful crackdown on those standing up for human rights in their society.

We will not be silenced by these attacks from the Indian Government. Please watch and share this video to show your support. Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Thank you for your support,

Kate Allen

Director

Amnesty International UK

A Rat’s Nest of Contradictions

by Les May

SOMETIME this month draft guidelines drawn up by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) are expected to be sent to English and Welsh schools.  The Scottish government cancelled what are assumed to be similar guidelines in June.

A leak of the new guidelines suggests that schools would be advised and sometimes required to open areas of school life that have previously been treated as separate on the basis of sex to children who identify as that gender.  A boy who identifies as a female would be allowed to use girls’ changing rooms and on school trips could legally be placed in the same bedroom as a girl, and vice versa.

A women’s advocacy group, Fair Play for Women, has argued that whilst the EHRC guidelines consistently protect children who identify as ‘trans-gender’ equal weight has not been given to protecting girls. They go on to say it must be made explicit that sex and gender identity are different, and that it is important that girls to be able to recognise and name the male sex as otherwise the right of girls to assert their boundaries, e.g. with regard to touching, is taken away.

See also:

http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEvidence/CommitteeEvidence.svc/EvidenceDocument/Women%20and%20Equalities/Enforcing%20the%20Equality%20Act%20the%20law%20and%20the%20role%20of%20the%20Equality%20and%20Human%20Rights%20Commission/written/90972.html

Under the guidelines if a girl feels uncomfortable that a child she identifies as a boy, but who self identifies as a girl, is using a girls’ changing room then it is the girl who feels awkward who must go and change elsewhere, not the boy.

In 2018-19 the number of children, some as young as three (3), identifying as ‘trans-gender’ was 2,590 according to the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) of the NHS.   This is 30 times (3000%) more than ten years ago. A governor of the NHS trust under which GIDS operates resigned this year concerned about the ‘affirmative model’ used by GIDS too quickly leads to the prescription of puberty blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones.  He also suggested that in some cases the difficulties which some children have, and which become identified as being about gender identification, may in fact be because they have become aware of their sexual orientation. In common parlance ‘they are gay’. This suggestion deserves serious consideration.

When the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee took evidence for their report, Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission it received submissions from members of the public. Two of these were:

‘We desperately need legal clarity on the terms ‘transgender’ ‘transsexual’,

and ‘gender reassignment’—I think [the] way they are currently being

used, and the way the [Equality Act] interacts with the GRA 2004, is being

abused, misused, misapplied and misrepresented.’

‘The combined effect of the [Gender Recognition

Act] and the [Equality Act] is to conflate sex and gender irretrievably, and what remains is a rat’s nest of contradictions, where sex-based rights cannot be properly invoked.’ (My emphasis)

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/news-parliament-2017/equality-act-role-of-ehrc-report-published-17-19/

I agree entirely with the two submissions quoted above. The media use the word ‘trans’ and ‘trans-gender’ interchangeably and with no clarity about what is meant when they are used. Ditto when ‘non-binary’ and ‘gender fluid’ are used. This makes the situation more opaque when clarity is what is needed.

As the law stands schools have to provide lunchtime meals suitable for Muslim children. If the guidelines soon to be issued by the EHRC are enacted Muslim girls could find themselves sharing a bedroom with someone they, and their and other parents, identify as a boy.   Expect trouble!

My apologies to rats everywhere for dragging them into the ‘trans’ argument. You deserve better.

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

Taking Back Control or Smash and Grab Raid?

by Les May

WHATEVER Boris Johnson has to say about the reasons for his decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks many people, possibly a majority, will conclude that its purpose is to prevent MPs passing legislation to prevent the UK leaving the EU without a deal agreed by Parliament.

What this demonstrates starkly is that in practice the UK Parliament ‘taking back control’ of our laws from the European Court of Justice will mean the government of the day can always get its way because there is no higher authority to prevent this. In the extreme the UK Parliament could vote itself out of existence and establish Boris, or one of his successors, as dictator.

If you think this is fanciful I would remind you that it is what happened in Germany in 1933 when the Reichstag voted through the ‘Enabling Bill’ which gave full powers to Hitler.  Less than three months later all non-Nazi parties, organizations, and unions ceased to exist.

At present as citizens of a country which is a member of the EU our rights are protected by the ‘Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ (ECHR) which dates back to 1950. Article 3 of the First Protocol relates specifically to the Right to Free Elections. The ECHR is enshrined in UK law by the ‘Human Rights Act 1998’. What happens after we leave is anyone’s guess. Do you trust Boris Johnson to protect your fundamental rights.

In January 2019 this appeared on the UK Parliament website:

Human Rights Act is not safe after Brexit

In its response to a letter from the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee, the Government has failed to give assurances that it will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act – a stark contrast to its proclaimed commitment to ‘shared values of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms’.
The House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee wrote to Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice David Gauke in December regarding the rights of citizens post-Brexit. The Committee sought an explanation for the dilution of the Government’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Last week the Committee received a troubling response. While again pledging an unchanging commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, the letter from Edward Argar MP, Undersecretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, ended with reference to the Government’s intention to revisit the Human Rights Act once the process of leaving the EU is concluded.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/media-centre/house-of-lords-media-notices/2019/january-2019/human-rights-act-is-not-safe-after-brexit/

If all this seems a little abstract here is a concrete example where the ECHR and the more recent Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union played a significant part.

Prior to the Fees Order of 2013 employees could bring and pursue proceedings to enforce their statutory rights in an Employment Tribunal (ET) or Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) without paying a fee. The Fees Order imposed a charge of £1,200 to bring proceedings for unfair dismissal, equal pay and discrimination claims, and £390 for lesser claims.

In launching proceedings for judicial review the trade union UNISON argued that the making of the Fees Order was not a lawful exercise of the Lord

Chancellor’s statutory powers, because the prescribed fees interfere unjustifiably with the right of access to justice under both the common law and EU law and frustrate the operation of Parliamentary legislation granting employment rights.

Seven Justices of the Supreme Court agreed it was unlawful and must be quashed. In paragraphs 105 to 117 of the judgement specific reference is made to relevant EU law.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0233.html

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union can be found at:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

Johnson has a reputation for not always telling the truth so we have to judge him by his actions, not his words. If this is what we can expect from him in the future then some Tory MPs are going to have to decide whether they are willing to continue with a dodgy prime minister in the shape of Johnson or hold their noses and risk a brief Corbyn led government calling an election in which their main rivals will be the Brexit party.

If the leader of the Scottish Tories resigns as seems to be a possibility, they are going to look an awfully weak bunch.

**********

Declaration of Human Rights:

Are we in violation?
Everyone has Right to Free Speech!

by John Wilkins

MANY of us in this country believe passionately in freedom of expression within the law.  Is this the situation today?  I would argue no.

If we truly had such a freedom why is it often difficult getting your views listened to and getting them published even more so. 
 
In the case of the local media there is a diminishing ability to express your views particularly if they are challenging to those in power in our Town Halls.  Letters columns in my local papers are almost non-existent and the local on-line paper is becoming more cautious in its reporting.  Many feel that its reliance on advertising revenue from our local council could be a reason.

However it is also on the national stage that there is an in-balance in reporting important issues, largely because the print media is 80% dominated by papers with what appears a right wing bias. Many fear the BBC treads cautiously at times so has to not upset the powers in Westminster.

You may disagree with me but I will give one example which concerns the vendetta, not too strong an expression in my view, against Jeremy Corbyn.  On the phone to a friend he mentioned a newspaper he had just seen which contained no less than 13 articles detrimental to Corbyn, plus 3 attacking the Labour Party.  I write not as a member of Labour nor any other but I would like to see more balanced reporting, surely there are more issues to be discussed than attacks on one politician, like him or loath him?

A friend has tried to create a newspaper with more left wing views to counter some of the bias in our press and that includes holding our local Labour run Council to account as well as the Conservative Government.  Sadly his criticism of the local Labour leader of Council incurred the wrath of a the then chair of his CLP.  This escalated into criticism of a front page of my friends newspaper which was construed as anti-Semitic and the flames were fanned by right wing blogger,  Guido Fawkes.  As a result fury from the Board of Deputies gave ammunition for Labour to suspend him.  This was overturned on appeal but other contributors were targetted for abuse on social media, including a MEP, some were threats of violence and warnings that MOSSAD knew who they were.
Fast forward several months and a meeting was organised to discuss creating more media outlets expressing left wing views.  Here is where the UN declaration of Human Rights would appear to have been violated by sections of the Jewish community.

Article 19. 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'

Article 20. (1) 'Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.'
Over a dozen venues were approached and all bowed down to pressure not to allow the meeting on their premises.  The meeting did happen despite this this opposition.  The venue was kept secret until the last minute but a bogus venue was picketed by protesters.  One lone photographer from the Jewish Chronicle did appear but as the turn out was low and the meeting late starting he was fobbed off by being told that the meeting was probably not going to take place.
It did, albeit with a small audience, but including many who had travelled from as far as Devon, London and N. Wales.  Some had no particular political allegiance. Indeed a friend of mine persuaded his politically disinterested wife to attend and she is now a passionate supporter of Jeremy Corbyn!
Whatever your political views I hope you share with me the concerns I have raised and the report published only last year by Reporters without Borders, which campaigns for journalistic freedom.  They placed the UK 40 th. out of 180 countries on its World Press Freedom Index. Some of the countries ranked above us include 'Uruguay, Samoa and Chile for restrictions on reporters seeking to hold power to account'. (The Guardian Wed. 25 April 2018)
As we approach the 200 year anniversary of Peterloo, which captured the imagination of the national press and led indirectly to creation of the then Manchester Guardian a few decades later I wonder if we have come as far as we should in terms of freedom of expression.
Listen to the words expressed about freedom of expression centuries ago:
"The right to free speech is more important than the content of the speech."  Voltaire.

“I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”.

(Attributed to Voltaire, but whilst he expressed such sentiments it was first published by English writer/ historian, Evelyn Beatrice Hall without quotation marks in her book about Voltaire and is now claimed to be her words.)
People in the UK have the right to free speech including Boris Johnson, Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage as well as those on the Labour left even if they are sometimes careless in their choice of words.  One exception is that if those words can be construed as incitement to violence.  One thing I have noted is the violent rhetoric of the far left and the far right and the pro Israel lobby.  Even the calm, reasoned words of outgoing leader of the Lib Dems, Vince Cable were lambasted cruelly by the far left for daring to claim Manchester could be doing more to eradicate rough sleeping in Manchester.  Yet one Labour councillor's solution had been to arrest and fine those he termed aggressive beggars!
Please, those of you who believe in democracy and freedom of expression speak out when those values are threatened, but do so in a calm reasoned manner.
***********

The Lady U-Turns on Human Rights

Queen of the quick change!

ON the 27th, May, Tim Harford, the undercover economist, in the Financial Times writing on the virtues of changing one's mind wrote:
'The leaders of the US and the UK have become so proficient at changing directions that "U-turn" no longer seems adequate.  Donald and Theresa are spinning policy doughnuts.'
Trump, for example, has reversed direction on issues as varied as whether he would put Hillary Clinton in jail (yes, the no), whether he would force a vote on healthcare reform (yes, then no) and whether it was wise to attack Syria (no, then yes).
But, Mr Harford claims Mrs. May has gone further:
'Mrs. May has changed her mind on everything from Brexit to a bill of rights, energy pricing to nuclear power.  She reversed a 2015 manefesto commitment, reersed the reversal, and has now taken the unpresidented step of tearing pages out of her own manifesto just before launching it.  She offers a "strong and stable" slogan, a weak and wobbly reality, and a rich seam of irony.'
Now almost at the last minute before the eve of the election she has just stated, according to a current Guardian report:
'Theresa May has declared she is prepared to rip up human rights laws to impose new restrictions on terror suspects, as she sought to gain control over the security agenda just 36 hours before the polls open.  The prime minister said she was looking at how to make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and how to increase controls on extremists where it is thought they present a threat but there is not enough evidence to prosecute them.'
Mr. Harford argues:
'Such changes of direction are what grown-ups do - and any well-run coutry should expect to see them regularly.  Unfortunately there is no sense that either Mr. Trump or Mrs. May have changed direction on anything because they have been  moved by new evidence on whether it works.  Instead, they promised what seemed popular, and flinched at the first glimpse that it may not be popular at all.'
It's not a very convincing way to proceed,, and gives the impression that these people will say anything to gain our votes.

Rochdale MBC & threat to 'Criminalise Poverty'

'LIBERTY' (the Civil Rights group) has written to Rochdale Borough Council urging it to abandon proposals that could criminalise the town’s most vulnerable people and curb residents’ civil liberties – with no public consultation.
The council is considering using a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to introduce 10 separate criminal offences. PSPOs are disturbingly broad powers that let local authorities ban a huge range of activities.
The authority has proposed a ban on people “placing themselves in a position to beg or solicit money” at any time – effectively criminalising poverty when homelessness in England is increasing at an alarming rate.
The council also hopes to place a curfew on under-18s between 11pm and 6am – a measure usually reserved for a national emergency – and criminalise the unauthorised distribution of printed materials, which could violate residents’ freedom of expression and cause significant harm to local businesses.
A further ban on “foul and abusive language” has already been recorded widely in the press – and ridiculed across the globe.
If introduced, the PSPO would give police and council officers the power to issue on-the-spot penalties of up to £100. If unable to pay, those in breach could face prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.
Liberty believes several of Rochdale’s proposed bans, if implemented, risk breaching residents’ fundamental rights, protected by the Human Rights Act. The Act requires the council not to behave in a way which would disproportionately affect  residents’ rights.
The council does not intend to consult the public on the plans.

Discriminatory and unworkable

In today’s letter, Liberty’s Legal Officer Lara ten Caten advises Cllr Mark Widdup that:

• The proposed ban on begging will punish vulnerable members of society by imposing financial penalties they cannot afford – cruelly forcing them to pay a fine using what little money they might have saved from the charity of others.
• PSPOs are extremely blunt instruments incapable of addressing complex social problems or sensitively dealing with targeted groups. PSPOs can only lead to fines, and are therefore likely to draw vulnerable people into both the criminal justice system and a cycle of debt.
• The proposed curfew on under-18s is disproportionate, discriminates against young people and is practically unworkable.
• A ban on the unauthorised distribution of leaflets would constitute an unjustified interference with the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to impart and receive information. Such a ban would curtail the rights of citizens to campaign on political or social issues, and could also harm local businesses which rely on leaflets for promotional purposes.
• The proposed swearing ban is unworkable and represents a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression.  

Lara ten Caten, Legal Officer for Liberty, said: “These proposals are a staggering misuse of power. The council is seeking to limit the rights and freedoms of Rochdale residents without providing any evidence of a need to do so – or even bothering to consult them in the first place.
“This PSPO would make criminals of the homeless and vulnerable, the young, the politically-engaged and businessmen and women alike.
“Criminalising those most in need is no answer to rising homelessness, while the swearing ban is so vague no one could possibly know whether they risk breaking the law or not.
“Rochdale deserves better. For the good of its residents, the council must abandon these plans now.”

Secretary of Blacklist Group in Court

Dave Smith under arrest

THE trial of Dave Smith takes place in the City of London Magistrates Court on Thurs 9th - Fri 10th June following his arrest for blocking after traffic in Park Lane during a protest against blacklisting of union members in the construction industry.  The secretary of the Blacklist Support Group and co-author of the book Blacklisted has been on bail for over 15 months since his arrest on 18th March 2015. The companies involved in the blacklisting have recently admitted their guilt, paid out millions in compensation and apologised for their involvement in The Consulting Association conspiracy in the High Court.

Smith does not deny standing in the middle of the central London thoroughfare but is claiming that he has a democratic right to protest and that includes causing minor disruption to traffic.  This right being enshrined in Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In fact, Smith is providing video evidence of the incident as part of his legal submission.

Video of the Park Lane protest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLuP7iYDAfg

Video of Dave Smith's speech outside the court on the first trial date (that was adjourned): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72i1oSHOh48

The trial is about whether it is lawful to exercise every citizens's democratic right to protest. 

John McDonnell MP, who contacted the police on behalf of Smith on the night of his arrest commented:

'Blacklisted workers have suffered a grave injustice. Direct action has been an essential part of exposing that injustice. The action taken by Dave Smith stands in a long standing tradition of direct action in this country. I fully support Dave Smith and his colleagues.'

Dave Smith commented:

"Not a single company director responsible for blacklisting has been forced to appear in court for their role in the scandal. But if blacklisted workers protest about the human rights conspiracy, we could face a criminal conviction. That speaks volumes about the British legal system".  

Smith's pro-bono legal team of John Carl Townsend (barrister) and Liam Dunne (solicitor) of Guney, Clark & Ryan solicitors, were central players in the High Court blacklisting trial. The attached legal 'skeleton argument' presented to the court provides an in depth explanation of the legal issues at stake. 

Attached photos from Guy Smallman (NUJ)

Blacklist Support Group protest

9:15am Thursday 9th July 

o/s City of London Magistrates Court

1 Queen Victoria Street London EC4N 4XY.

(next to Bank tube station) 

Gagging the Spaniards!

PROTESTS against Government imposed austerity cuts have been strongest in Spain, where the occupy movement began with the with the youth-led movement calling itself the 'indignanties' which occupied Madrid's main square in 2011, before Occupy Wall Street got off the ground.

 

From Wednesday the 1^st, July, such  demonstrations will be illegal and demonstrators could individually face fines of up to 600,000 euros, or about £500,000.  Human rights organisations have described this new gagging law as an anti-democratic response to the social discontent resulting from the financial crisis and the record unemployment.

 

The new law bans any kind of amateur video footage that has increasingly been used to expose police tactics and which showed police beating protesters in the Basque country last month.

 

Judith Sunderland, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, has said the new law represents 'a direct threat to the rights to meet peacefully and freedom of speech in Spain.'

 

A campaign against the new gagging law called 'No somos Delitos'  (We are not a Crime) is now up and running.

Civil liberties group 'Liberty' threatens legal action if ICO doesn't prosecute companies for blacklisting!

The civil liberties group 'Liberty', have written to the Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, demanding that the Information Commissioners Office (ICO), prosecute 44 building firms that have illegally blacklisted 3,213 workers. In their letter to the Information Commisssioner, Liberty say:  'The limited action you have taken so far is completely inadequate.'

The letter also says that it is 'unlawful' for the Information Commissioner not to use his Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act powers and adds:  'You should seek to prosecute firms involved or hand over the results of your investigation to the police to enable them to bring prosecutions.'

Although 44 major UK construction companies including Carillion and Sir Robert McAlpine, have been linked to a clandestine organisation known as the 'Consulting Association'( C.A.) that was found to be operating a blacklist of workers following a raid by officers of the ICO in February 2009, and sharing this information illegally, with these companies for a fee, none of the companies involved with the C.A. have been prosecuted. Former Special Branch officer, Ian Kerr, who ran the C.A. from an office in Droitwich, was subsequently fined £5,000 after being prosecuted by the ICO.

Corinna Ferguson, a 'Liberty lawyer' told the Daily Mirror newspaper:"We can't believe the inaction of the Information Commissioner on a human rights violation of such wide public interest. If we cannot persuade the commissioner to discharge his public duty, we will consider seeking assistance from the courts."

The ICO told the newspaper that they had received the letter from Liberty and would be responding in due course. The GMB trade union is also taking legal action to force the ICO to contact people who they know are on the blacklist. The GMB estimates that that there are 2,863 people still unaware that they were on the list and being blacklisted for their trade union and political activities.

Judge rules benefit sanctions unlawful after DWP fails to comply with its own regulations!

Thousands of unemployed benefit claimants who lost money after being sanctioned, may be due a refund following a judicial review brought by two unemployed jobseekers.

In a fifty page ruling, Mr. Justice Foskett, declared that a six-month benefit sanction imposed on Jamieson Wilson a 41-year-old Midlands lorry driver who refused to work unpaid for six-months on the government's 'Community Action Programme (CAP), because he considered it 'forced labour', was unlawful because a letter sent to him by the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) was "not sufficiently clear and precise to comply with the government's own regulations concerning benefit sanctions." After being sanctioned, Wilson was forced to live on handouts from family and friends after being stripped of his benefits.

The ruling will apply to tens of thousands of jobseekers who received the same or similar letters and were sanctioned. In his ruling, Foskett said:

"It should not be necessary to ferret around for what most people would be inaccessible regulations to find out his or her position...there could be no question of sanctions being validly imposed if no proper notice of the sanction consequences was given."

The ruling says there had been a catalogue of errors surrounding Wilson's right to benefits. He had been told his benefits could be stopped for up to six-months if he refused to participate in the 'CAP' but his benefits could only have been stopped for two weeks.

A claim brought Cait Reilly, a 23-year-old geology graduate from Birmingham, that working for her dole money for 'Poundland', breached Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), that prohibits forced or compulsory labour, was dismissed by Foskett. Although both claims brought by Wilson and Reilly contended that being forced to work unpaid for their benefits amounted to 'forced labour', Foskett ruled that the government work-for-your-dole schemes were "a very long way removed from the kind of colonial exploitation of labour that led to the formulation of
Article 4." But in the Reilly case, he stated that the DWP had broken Jobseeker regulations because she had been wrongly told the 'Work Experience Scheme' was mandatory, when in fact, it was only mandatory after she'd agreed to take part.

Lawyers acting for Reilly and Wilson had also argued that because the DWP had failed to publish enough information about the schemes setting out jobseekers rights and responsibilities, the schemes were unlawful. This claim was also rejected by Foskett.

Although the judge in this judicial review dismissed the main claim that working-for your-dole money was analagous to 'slavery' or 'forced labour', many who have been forced onto these government schemes, perceive it to be so. Likewise, so do the firms who have pulled out who say involvement in the schemes, is damaging their reputations. It is difficult to see how a scheme described as 'mandatory work activity', could not be forced labour even if if it doesn't fall within the meaning of Article 4 of the ECHR. Moreover, there is little evidence that these work-for-you-dole schemes increase peoples' chances of finding work. People who refuse to take part get sanctioned and face destitution and there is increasing evidence that these schemes, are undermining the pay and conditions of those in work. Naturally, employers are attracted to workers costing very little and people who work for nothing, are even more attractive. The government says that it wants to end the "something for nothing culture." We couldn't agree more! Why should the British taxpayer be paying a subsidy to high street stores making billions in profits by providing them with free labour. If these companies want workers, surely, they should be paying for it.