A letter to Mr Mark Field, Member of Parliament

The letter below is informative as to the way how the British state may operate in reality, and it can be of particular interest to specialists for whom any detail is informative. As to the educated reader of the blog it may serve as the precaution: "Be diligent and watchful, there are many bastards around who are well versed in the teaching of Clausevitz, and who will not stop at anything on the way to break you, destroy your personality, make you a slave and rob you of everything you may have!"


London,
18 July 2008

Mr Mark Field, MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Dear Sir,

Writing this letter is induced by my concern with , firstly, the aberrations in the working of the Department for Works and Pensions that produced degrading, illegal and irrational treatment of myself in violation of Articles 3, 4.3 and 8.1 of Human Rights Act, 1998, and, secondly, with the relations of the said aberrations to the basic tenets of civil life in this country altogether.
As to the former, the summary of material facts is as follows ( in the brackets the number of a relevant page in the attached bundle of documents is indicated).

In January 2008 as a participant of New Deal option at Kentish Town Jobcenter I was ordered to attend a programme at an organisation called A4e to increase my employability. On the second day of the programme I was requested to sign the Beneficiary Form (p.17) which I refused on the basis of the entries of the form being semantically diffused. The situation had been repeated several times after that, and on February 22nd a doubt has arisen that I may have not taken sufficient or appropriate steps to find job (p.1). After an investigation of the matter the doubt evaporated, but on 14th March 2008 I was informed by Kentish Town Jobcenter that they would not pay me jobseeker’s allowance from 15th March 2008 as I had not attended the programme at A4e (pp.5-7). Moreover, the Kentish Town jobcenter states that I will never get jobseekers allowance in the UK altogether (see underlined on p.5, mark 4). The absence of logic in the Jobcenter's decision is clear from the fact that in one of their letters to me they explicitly admitted that I had attended the programme (see underlined on p.3), whereas in other letters (p.5, marks 1-3) they claim that I had not. The decision, in my view, is bluntly illegal and prejudiced, and I submitted the case for judicial review to the Administrative Court on 01 May 2008 (pp.9-16). My application for interim relief (pp.15-16) was turned down by a judge on the basis of being not ‘appropriate’: in the judge's view, I should have lodged an appeal instead (p.18). The date of the hearing itself is not determined yet.

Since that decision I continued signing on while being an object of harassment and intimidation initiated by the Kentish Town Jobcenter Plus resulting in that on 12 May 2008 I was informed by the said center that my claim would be closed altogether from 19th of April 2008 as I allegedly did not attend to sign my declaration (pp.20-21). As the decision of the center was based on bluntly falsified facts, I appealed on 16 May 2008 by submitting the application to the said center in person (pp.22-24). As no reply to my appeal had been received by 13 June 2008, I called the jobcenter and Glasgo information center to find out the status of my appeal. In reply, I was told that there was no trace of my appeal being received!

I was making the enquiry as to the status of my appeal from the premises of a Jobcenter at Denmark Street , and I asked the staff to send my completed appeal form to the Kentish Town Jobcenter by fax again. This was done, but no receipt was issued to me on the basis of the fax machine being not able to do this. By now, no reply from Kentish Town has been received. Meanwhile, I noticed the increase of some activities around me which can be called covert psychological intimidation, and on 28 June 2008 at 11.55 pm near the Tesco superstore premises at Charing Cross, I was assaulted by two youngsters in a manner which suggests it being staged on purpose. The case was reported to the police, no response being obtained by now.

There is one more important fact illuminating the manner how Kentish Town jobcenter operates. On a number of occasions I tried to find out the legal basis of the Jobcenters actions, and I was not able to get it from the staff in oral form. Finally, I submitted a letter to the Center which I posted by recorded mail on 28th May 2008 (pp.25-34). As no reply to the letter had been received, I asked the Center for explanation during the above mentioned telephone call on 13th June 2008. As it was the case with my appeal handed in person at this very Center my letter sent by recorded mail had not been received by Kentish Town Jobcenter as well. On top of that, I was told that there is no evidence of receiving a letter (p.35) which I posted to Kentish Town Jobcenter by ordinary mail, certificate of posting being issued (p.40). Therefore, on three occasions Kentish Town Jobcenter claimed that there was no trace of documents submitted to them , no matter sent by post or delivered in person.

Three further facts I would like to submit to your attendance.

Firstly, before mailing the letter dated as 28 May 2008 I had attended on the same day the City Citizens Advice Bureau to seek an advise as to how should I send a letter to Kentish Town Jobcenter to be sure that the letter would reach the destination. The reason why I was seeking this advise was that my letter to the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers (the IEEE), USA, containing my membership fees and renewal form had not been received by the IEEE (p.39) despite being mailed by 'signed for' International Mail Service provided by Royal Mail and despite being accounted for as delivered by the Royal Mail. Further enquires and correspondence with the Royal Mail to get a name of the person who signed for the delivery failed to shed any light on the matter (p..37), and presently I prepare a legal case against the Royal Mail to recover damages. The advisor advised me to think whether I should send the letter altogether, and if I decide to do so to send it by recorded delivery which I did. Upon some consideration, the advisor told me that the best way would be to send a letter by fax, but I was not able to afford it , though it was done later without any effect. Hence, my precautions proved to be justified.

Secondly, my appeal to Kentish Town Jobcenter was received by a person whom I never seen at the Center. This person stamped and dated the copy of appeal form but refused to sign it.
Thirdly, my attempt to have the legal bases of the Center’s actions towards me elucidated failed, and the way how it failed is conspicuous. Thus, when I asked for oral clarification by the manager, I was told that I would need an appointment which would arrive by post. No letter with the appointment details has ever been received. My attempts to talk to the New Deal manager or to an advisor on duty were ignored altogether upon my expressed desire to make audio records of our conversations. My calls to Glasgo Customer Service failed altogether as I each time I was referred back to the jobcenter. Finally, my letters sent either by ordinary mail or by recorded delivery were not received by the Jobcenter as my personal delivery of appeal was not also. It is a bit awkward, isn't it?

Now let me pass on to the issues of political significance. They are as follows.

Firstly, I found that factually the Kentish Town Jobcenter is beyond effective control which is available for their ‘customers’. Particulars on which this claim is based you can find in the text of my letter of 28th May 2008 to the Center which copy you will find attached (pp.25-34). In general, my numerous calls to Glasgo Customer Center were absolutely useless as all my questions and complains were ignored and I was advised to resolve all problems within the Kentish Town Jobcenter. The website of the Department for Work and Pensions provides no way to address the questions also. There are two ways to challenge the actions of a Jobcenter in this country, first one being via court system, second via appeal procedure. The court system seems to be not sympathetic to the litigant as my application for interim relief was declined by a judge of the High Court as inappropriate. In my application for interim relief I indicated that I have no means to support myself and that I faced eviction from the Barbican YMCA were I was dwelling. The decision of the judge in fact raises the question of the standards which govern the judges of the High Court in taking their decisions, and you may find it of interest, as I did, to explore this subject further on taking into account other decisions of the judge. The problem is even more troubling as the referral of the judge to the appeal system is not helpful in view of the fact that Kentish Town Jobcenter had not received my appeal submitted to the Center by myself in person, and I subsequently have had no response to my appeal from 16th May 2008. There are two explanations to the chains of events displayed above. The first is that the functioning of the UK’s political system requires further close scrutiny as to its efficiency, corruptibility and ethical basis of its guiding principles. The second is that my particular case is an exception, and I am just a target of some forces in this country which are beyond the democratic control. In this relation, I would be pleased if the identity of the person whom I handed over my appeal at the Kentish Town Jobcenter was established as there are many indications that I am a targeted person in the UK, but presently I do not want to dwell on the issue to save your time.

Secondly, I found that there are no effective means in the United Kingdom to get legal information on which the Jobcenters Plus operate. Thus, during the evolution of the above described case I started to doubt that the actions undertaken by the Center are legally substantiated as I found many indications in the secondary legal literature in support of my suspicion. My attempts to find references to the primary legal sources failed as the answers to the legal questions which I sought I was not able to get neither from City Citizen's Advice Bureau, nor from Mary Ward Legal Advice Center, nor from RCJ Advice Center. My approach to a couple of private legal firms yielded no result also (pp..45,46). Moreover, some advisors at the City Citizen’s Advice Center clearly disapproved my suing the Department for Work and Pensions. Also , my question to the latter advisor as to whether there exists a sure way to get legal advice in the UK from a qualified solicitor the answer was in negative. Therefore, I was effectively prevented from getting basic legal information in the United Kingdom.

Thirdly, it seems to me that there are some problems with the exercise of democracy in the High Court. Thus, application for remedies at the Administrative Court requires reference to the law which was allegedly violated by a respondent, and three copies of the full texts of corresponding legal texts are required to be attached to the claim. In my circumstances it is impossible as, firstly, it proved to be impossible to find legal references themselves, and , secondly, if I would be successful, it would amount to many hundreds , if not thousands, of pages, with corresponding expenses beyond the capacity of a person with no income. Therefore, the British Judicial system is not available for everybody even in theory, and, consequently, is not democratic.

Fourthly, in the United Kingdom there is no mechanism which would provide anybody seeking work with a job. In fact, this is a basic tenet of bazaar economics, but my experience with applying for a position of Senior Lecturer in Physics at South Bank University in Autumn 2007 says that there are no provisions in the English legal system which would assure that those people get job who are the most fit to do it – in other words, the labour bazaar in the UK seems to be imperfect. Moreover, there is no means for the applicant to get any information as to the process of selection. Thus, in my case, despite the employer initially clearly manifested an interest in my proposals with respect how the job required could be done and urged me to file an application for the position, subsequently no response was obtained to my application. My subsequent letters to the human resources department of the University and to the Chancellor of the University requesting information as to how the vacancy was filled were just ignored. This case perceived on the background provided by the evolution of my described relations with Kentish Town Jobcenter indicates that in the UK there exists a room for operation of routines which allow anybody who is perceived as troublemaker being thrown on the street, reduced to the state of animal by destroying one’s human capital and left without any warranty of physical survival.

In this respect, the system of Jobscenters plus is formal and not effective. Last time I was getting Jobseekers allowance for more than eighteen months, and during this time I was asking my advisors to assist me with tuition fees for a postgraduate course which would substantially enhance my chances to find the work appropriate to my education and experience. I was replied that there is no such opportunity. Nevertheless, as I remember, such opportunity existed in the middle of 1990th, and the abolition of this scheme was politically unjustified decision and contributed to the fact that, as my experience says, the jobcentres may contribute to the process of throwing the person on the street by pretending that they aim at helping people to find work. To illustrate this statememnt, let me refer to my personal experience which is as follows. In January 2008 I submitted an abstract of the paper to the IEEE International Conference on the Education in Engineering 2008, which was accepted. The paper itself was due by the end of April 2008. Because of the Kentish Town Jobcenter’s illegal and irrational activities which were allegedly to provide me with unspecified "experience", I was left without means to exist and found myself involved in useless activities trying to find out an exit from the clasps of the Jobcenter and its accomplices. In result, I did submit the paper, but it was not sufficiently well deliberated to be accepted for presentation and publication. Consequently , I lost a valuable opportunity to attend the International Conference where my chances to meet a potential employer were much high than at the premises of Kentish Town Jobcenter. Upon having overviewed my experience, I have impression that Jobcenters in this country treat their customers as slaves whose disobedience should be punished by application of measures including extrajudicial ones. Moreover, I hold the view that even though the Kentish Town Jobcenter is staffed mainly by people with humanistic views, there are number of people who seem to acquire their professional experience in institutions with totalitarian tradition. To find support to this statement, please read attentively my letter of 28 May 2008 to Mrs Morton (pp.25-34).
From 16 March 2008 I reduced my consumption to the level of just above physical survival relying on irregular borrowing and donations from the people who know me, and this way of life is highly adverse to my health and damaging for my professional qualifications and to the integrity of my personality. I also received a number of letters from Barbican YMCA threatening me with eviction as I am not able to compensate the difference between my Housing benefit and the actual rent. Besides, the Department for Work and Pensions’ campaign of harassment and intimidation has adversely affected and continues to affect my chances to find work.

To sum up, the essence of this letter is that there is an abundant evidence of me being treated unfairly and with prejudice by Department for Work and pensions, and the manner of the treatment amounts to the level when it can be called degrading. Also, there is clear intervention of some forces acting in this country with the delivery of my correspondence and there were attempts to involve me in forced labour. Both the former and the letter constitute violation of Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3, 4.3, 8.1. The facts referred also indicate that some other organizations colluded with the Department for Work and Pensions in executing psychological war and taking extrajudicial actions against me, including employment of criminal elements, which were employed on a number of occasions earlier, and the relevant information can be provided on request. In the view of above I have reasonable concerns that I can be exterminated in this country by extrajudicial means.

To conclude the letter, may I ask your advise as to how I may resolve the following practical issues.
1. How can I get a response to my letter addressed to Mrs Isabelle Morton which poses a number of questions as to the legal basis of Kentish Town Jobcenter’s treatment of my case? May I remind you, that i) the Jobcentre did not responded to my oral questions; ii) the Jobcenter claims that the letter containing the questions was not received by the Center; iii) the appeal lodged by myself in person to the Center was "not received" by the Center.
2. As the date of the hearing of my case for judicial review at Administrative Court is still not determined, how may I know for how long should I wait before the hearing will take place?
3. Who and how can help the Kentish Town Jobcenter to trace my appeal? In this respect, could you please help the Department for Work and Pensions develop procedures which would assure the safety of documents submitted to the Department?
4. How can I get qualified legal help for submitting a case for damages against the Department for Work and Pensions?
5. I have reasons to believe that I was disqualified from getting jobseeker's allowance illegally as a matter of revenge from some people acting in this country both overtly and covertly. Let us suppose that the reasons are justified. As my case reveals, to prove that I am right it may either take indefinite time or turn out to be impossible even in theory. Hence, the victim of organised governmental harassment can be reduced to a state of animal or eliminated altogether well before the illegal activities of the government can be exposed. What course of actions would you advise for a person in such a situation to survive in the UK?
Finally, you may have noticed by now that my account of the events indicate that there exists in some official circles in the UK a culture of ignoring the letters or the requests for legitimate information whenever it suits the officials’ interests. A number of instances to support the claim were laid down above, further ones are available on request. In this respect may I also hope that my remarks as to the operation of democratic institutions in the UK might be useful in your activities as a Member of Parliament to improve the service provided by these institutions, proper functioning of which might significantly contribute to the effective solving of many urgent problems which this country faces. It is unlikely that the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham exposed in his ‘Panopticum’ will remain effective for long.

Sincerely yours,

Alexander Sobko

Attachments.
1. The letter dated as 22nd February 2008 from Mrs A Barnatt with the doubts as to sufficiency of my activities to find work (p.1)
2.A letter dated as 4 March 2008 bfrom London DMA (pp.2-4)
3.A letter dated as 14 March 2008 from Kentish Town Jobcenter disqualifying me from getting JSA at all (pp.5-7).
4.A letter dated as 25.03.08 from A4e (p.8).
5. My claim for judicial review (pp.9-16).
6.Benficiary Declaration Form (p.17)
7.Decision of the Court as to my application for Interim Relief (p.18)
8.Notice to Quit from Barbican YMCA (p.19)
9. A letter dated as 12 may 2008 from Kentish Town Jobcenter informing me as to the closure of my claim for JSA (pp.20-21)
10.Appeal aginst the decision to close my claim (pp.22-24)
11. My letter to Mrs Morton with the questions as to the meaning of Kentish Town activities and their legal bases (pp.25-34)
12. A letter to Kentish Town Jobcenter of 09 May 2008, not received (p.35); certificate of posting (p.40).
13.The letters from Royal Mail (pp.36,37)
14.The letters from IEEE (pp.38,39).
15.The letters asking for legal assistance (pp.41-49).