Steven Bennett Arrested / Cut from Benefits for Taking Part in Dame Street Occupation

[C. Flower]

Stephen Bennett, known as a pro-Palestinian activist (and I think is a member of this forum) has reported via Face Book that his unemployment benefit was stopped, that he was refused emergency payment, and arrested for refusing to leave an office, because he had publicly taken part in the Dame Street Occupation, and given TV interviews.

If this is the case, it is an outrageous interference in a person's rights to political activity and protest.

As a comparison with this, Bertie Ahern claiming tens of thousands in expenses, while never showing up for Daíl votes, comes to mind.

I suggest sending emails to Joan Burton, and I will be doing that myself.



Steven Bennett

At approximately 1.45pm today Friday the 28th of October I was arrested under section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994 at the Eastern Health Board(EHB) in Loughlinstown, Dun Laoghaire.

My payment from the EHB was stopped, apparently because I have been attending Occupy Dame Street protests and giving interviews on RTE, Irish public television. According to the EHB it is proof I am not looking for work.

I went to the EHB to report that I did not receive my payment and to see if they could make an emergency payment as I have no food or money to last. Today was also the emergency day in the EHB.

I refused to leave and the Garda(Police) was called, I refused to leave requesting that the EHB service my emergency request. I was arrested and handcuffed and taken to Shankill Garda station where I was released a short time later.

It is ironic the state services will stop my small and needed payment because of my activities outside the central bank of Ireland yet on November 2nd 2011, next Wednesday, a $1,000,000,000(€700,000,000) bond comes due at Anglo Irish Bank. This bond is unsecured, unguaranteed, a bond we have absolutely no obligation to pay. But the government intends to pay that?

[C. Flower]

Did he say anything in those interviews that may have led social services to believe he may have other employment or his status was not what he said he was?

In general, it's a question of whether someone is deemed available for work / seeking work - at the discretion of the officer, but I guess with right to (slow) appeal.

I can't see that being in Dame Street makes someone less available for work than sitting at home.

[Fraxinus]

Stephen Bennett, known as a pro-Palestinian activist (and I think is a member of this forum) has reported via Face Book that his unemployment benefit was stopped, that he was refused emergency payment, and arrested for refusing to leave an office, because he had publicly taken part in the Dame Street Occupation, and given TV interviews.

If this is the case, it is an outrageous interference in a person's rights to political activity and protest.

As a comparison with this, Bertie Ahern claiming tens of thousands in expenses, while never showing up for Daíl votes, comes to mind.

I suggest sending emails to Joan Burton, and I will be doing that myself.

Done.

[Baron von Biffo]

Jobseeker's Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance are payments for people who are looking for jobs. The rules state that in order to qualify on must, inter alia, be 'Be available for and genuinely seeking work'. It's difficult to see how someone who's involved full time in political activity would meet that criterion.

To put it in perspective, imagine the outrage that would erupt here if it emerged that someone was drawing the dole while working full time in a FG TDs office.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/jobseekers_benefit.html#l1f4da

[Fraxinus]

Jobseeker's Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance are payments for people who are looking for jobs. The rules state that in order to qualify on must, inter alia, be 'Be available for and genuinely seeking work'. It's difficult to see how someone who's involved full time in political activity would meet that criterion.

To put it in perspective, imagine the outrage that would erupt here if it emerged that someone was drawing the dole while working full time in a FG TDs office.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/jobseekers_benefit.html#l1f4da

Does this man recieve an income from activism like someone working in a FG office would?

[C. Flower]

Jobseeker's Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance are payments for people who are looking for jobs. The rules state that in order to qualify on must, inter alia, be 'Be available for and genuinely seeking work'. It's difficult to see how someone who's involved full time in political activity would meet that criterion.

To put it in perspective, imagine the outrage that would erupt here if it emerged that someone was drawing the dole while working full time in a FG TDs office.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/jobseekers_benefit.html#l1f4da

Mr. Bennett appears to have been cut off specifically because of something he did - appearing at a public demonstration - and not because of something he didn't do. He may well have applied for dozens of jobs that week, for all I know.

I don't think that social welfare should be used as a long-term pension by anyone who doesn't want to work.

But why should unemployed people be prevented from volunteering ?

[fluffybiscuits]

The one thing the Social Welfare didnt do is ask him is he looking for work by the looks of it. Any one who is looking for a job would be asked to provide evidence and based on this it comes across as a pure witch hun on behalf of the social welfare clamping down on those who are political activists.

Just e mailed Joan Burton, thanks for raising the issue CF :)

[Baron von Biffo]

Does this man recieve an income from activism like someone working in a FG office would?

I should have said working voluntarily.

[Baron von Biffo]

Mr. Bennett appears to have been cut off specifically because of something he did - appearing at a public demonstration - and not because of something he didn't do. He may well have applied for dozens of jobs that week, for all I know.

I don't think that social welfare should be used as a long-term pension by anyone who doesn't want to work.

But why should unemployed people be prevented from volunteering ?

In the Op you quoted him as saying -

"My payment from the EHB was stopped, apparently because I have been attending Occupy Dame Street protests and giving interviews on RTE, Irish public television. According to the EHB it is proof I am not looking for work."

That's more than just appearing at a public demonstration. We don't know the specifics of the case and we can only get one side of it but if he was spending most of his time at the Dame St. thing it's impossible to see how he could meet the JB/JA criteria.

[C. Flower]

In the Op you quoted him as saying -

"My payment from the EHB was stopped, apparently because I have been attending Occupy Dame Street protests and giving interviews on RTE, Irish public television. According to the EHB it is proof I am not looking for work."

That's more than just appearing at a public demonstration. We don't know the specifics of the case and we can only get one side of it but if he was spending most of his time at the Dame St. thing it's impossible to see how he could meet the JB/JA criteria.

He says that he was told that his presence at Dame Street is proof that he is not looking for work. That appears to me to be patent discrimination on political grounds unless they have tailed a person 24/7 and he has not done anything to look for a job.


If he went training for the marathon, or reading newspapers in the library, would be have his money cut ?

[Baron von Biffo]

He says that he was told that his presence at Dame Street is proof that he is not looking for work. That appears to me to be patent discrimination on political grounds unless they have tailed a person 24/7 and he has not done anything to look for a job.


If he went training for the marathon, or reading newspapers in the library, would be have his money cut ?

This really isn't a political persecution case. If he'd involved with a TD or the SWP or the Irish branch of the Peoples Front of Judea he'd be treated the same way.

[C. Flower]

This really isn't a political persecution case. If he'd involved with a TD or the SWP or the Irish branch of the Peoples Front of Judea he'd be treated the same way.

Would you have opposed unemployed people canvassing during the Presidential campaign?

[Kid Ryder]

The UK Dept. of Work and Pensions maintain a category for disallowing Jobseekers Allowance claimants called Politically Active, Not Seeking Employment, or PANSE (pronounced 'Pansy') in acronymic form. It's used mostly to target lefty and anarchist political heads in the UK. Labour, Tory, UKIP, or Lib Dem 'volunteers' never get cut off for their mainstream political 'work', despite it often being as time-consuming as what other political activists do. Interesting to see cuddly, caring Moan Burton aping the Brits on this one.

[Baron von Biffo]

Would you have opposed unemployed people canvassing during the Presidential campaign?

What a strange question. Have I ever posted anything to suggest that I think unemployed people should not have the same rights as everyone else?

[C. Flower]

What a strange question. Have I ever posted anything to suggest that I think unemployed people should not have the same rights as everyone else?

Should they be able to attend Occupy Dame Street and give their views to the press ?

[carolmon]

that's blatant intimidation and a message to all those who may consider joining the protest that they now also face the threat of having their benefits stopped.

it's very heavy handed and i hope it backfires and galvanises more people to join the protest.

and anyway just how can they prove that he wasn't seeking work, sure most jobs nowadays you can apply online so a loan of an iphone would suffice whether in Dame St or wherever.

will be emailing Joan Burton but i think we need to emails all our elected TDs and ask them to clarify their position on this strategy.

[Baron von Biffo]

Should they be able to attend Occupy Dame Street and give their views to the press ?

Of course they should.

[Baron von Biffo]

and anyway just how can they prove that he wasn't seeking work, sure most jobs nowadays you can apply online so a loan of an iphone would suffice whether in Dame St or wherever.

The way the system works is that the applicant must demonstrate that (s)he meets the criteria rather than the department proving that they don't.

[carolmon]

The way the system works is that the applicant must demonstrate that (s)he meets the criteria rather than the department proving that they don't.

well what did they ask him to produce in the way of proof?

[Baron von Biffo]

well what did they ask him to produce in the way of proof?

How would I know that?

[Seán Ryan]

It is quite obvious that Chewbacca's department of (alleged) Social Protection has acted unlawfully here.

The department are not allowed to cut you off without first having convened a hearing whereby you can put your case to them.

The department gets around this in a very mealy mouthed way, by saying that the payment is merely suspended whilst the matter is investigated. So it is abundantly clear that one of two things has happened here. Either the Department of Social Protection has once again ignored its mandate and has unlawfully struck Steven from their obligation to him or the Health Board has ignored its obligation to ensure that Steven doesn't go hungry whilst an ongoing investigation is being pursued into Steven's claim.

It is a disgusting way to deprive a man of his fundamental right to peacefully assemble, receive and transmit information and to generally go about his lawful business. Or rather attempt to deprive him. Steven's made of strong stuff and Chewbacca's department has made a very stupid error in not picking on someone made of weaker stuff!

[Griska]

An absolute joke, if the case is as presented by Mr. Bennett.
Perhaps the dept should release some guidelines as to what an unemployed person can and cannot do so their payments will not be affected.

Would a religious person be cut off for attending a retreat, I wonder?
I suspect not.

[Dr. FIVE]

With prior notice you are allowed 12 days off a year when you may not look for work.
Outside that you must available to take up employment. Agree with all the right to protest business but we don't live in a republic and this lad should have been aware that this was the first tactic the establishment were going to use, so appearing on telly wasn't the wisest move. I expect they will be looking at everyone's PPS details once they have identify everyone. Don't be surprised if they mysteriously end up on the front of the indo neatly in-forcing the stereotype of the protesters.

[Griska]

With prior notice you are allowed 12 days off a year when you may not look for work.
Outside that you must available to take up employment. Agree with all the right to protest business but we don't live in a republic and this lad should have been aware that this was the first tactic the establishment were going to use, so appearing on telly wasn't the wisest move. I expect they will be looking at everyone's PPS details once they have identify everyone. Don't be surprised if they mysteriously end up on the front of the indo neatly in-forcing the stereotype of the protesters.

The guy could have been waiting on callbacks from 10 interviews.
There's no way you can say that by attending the protest he demonstrated that he was not looking for work.

[C. Flower]

With prior notice you are allowed 12 days off a year when you may not look for work.
Outside that you must available to take up employment. Agree with all the right to protest business but we don't live in a republic and this lad should have been aware that this was the first tactic the establishment were going to use, so appearing on telly wasn't the wisest move. I expect they will be looking at everyone's PPS details once they have identify everyone. Don't be surprised if they mysteriously end up on the front of the indo neatly in-forcing the stereotype of the protesters.

I think that might have been the case a few years ago, but now people know that there aren't jobs around for everyone.

How many hours a day should people be spending looking for a job ?
And people can look for jobs by putting their details up online, and in many other ways.

There should be clear guidelines on this, if people are going to have their benefit cut off.

And when it comes to restricting peoples rights to be politically active, that is more delicate a matter than whether they can go running in the park.

[Dr. FIVE]

Well aware of all that but the burden is on him to prove the ten applications. He must have been aware that this is the first thing they will start doing and it's bad PR for the camp given the way SW claimants and the camp are viewed. This only reinforces prejudices. There are plenty of people who will relish this story. "If the IMF got out of Irish affairs he would have no dole anyway, the big smelly hypocrite" etc

I don't agree with SW tactics but camping and marching is one thing, going on TV/getting arrested etc is only handing it to them and who they serve.

[Baron von Biffo]

With prior notice you are allowed 12 days off a year when you may not look for work.
Outside that you must available to take up employment. Agree with all the right to protest business but we don't live in a republic and this lad should have been aware that this was the first tactic the establishment were going to use, so appearing on telly wasn't the wisest move. I expect they will be looking at everyone's PPS details once they have identify everyone. Don't be surprised if they mysteriously end up on the front of the indo neatly in-forcing the stereotype of the protesters.

Would it be more republican to make exceptions to the rules for those whose politics we approve of?


Well aware of all that but the burden is on him to prove the ten applications. He must have been aware that this is the first thing they will start doing and it's bad PR for the camp given the way SW claimants and the camp are viewed. This only reinforces prejudices. There are plenty of people who will relish this story. "If the IMF got out of Irish affairs he would have no dole anyway, the big smelly hypocrite" etc

I don't agree with SW tactics but camping and marching is one thing, going on TV/getting arrested etc is only handing it to them and who they serve.

Yip. The last thing the unemployed need is someone giving ammunition to the scum-bags who say the dole is a lifestyle choice.

[Baron von Biffo]

And when it comes to restricting peoples rights to be politically active, that is more delicate a matter than whether they can go running in the park.

His right to be politically active hasn't been restricted.

[C. Flower]

Perhaps someone will give him a job as a full time "community organiser."

That would solve it.

[Baron von Biffo]

Perhaps someone will give him a job as a full time "community organiser."

That would solve it.

Shouldn't be a problem if he speaks for 99% of the population. ;)

[C. Flower]

Shouldn't be a problem if he speaks for 99% of the population. ;)

Indeed. But the idea is that the 1% has all the spare cash.

[Dr. FIVE]

Yip, and those who speak up are the ones who end up with no money in the ATMs

[Andrew49]

Would you have opposed unemployed people canvassing during the Presidential campaign?

That's the question to pass on to the Minister.

Seems to me that any kind of political activity, while claiming a welfare payment, is outlawed. During the PAYE protests over 30 years ago similar things happened to any unemployed people photographed amongst the marchers.

[Baron von Biffo]

Indeed. But the idea is that the 1% has all the spare cash.

99% of the pop x 1c each per year = €460,000.

[Andrew49]

If any unemployed person has appeared on the Frontline programme they will also have their right to free speech restricted ... if he or she (€200 per week) are not specifically looking for work from Kenny (€7,000 a week?) or RTE then they have no business being there.

[Baron von Biffo]

If any unemployed person has appeared on the Frontline programme they will also have their right to free speech restricted ... if he or she (€200 per week) are not specifically looking for work from Kenny (€7,000 a week?) or RTE then they have no business being there.

Let's stick to the facts as far as we know them. No one is having their right to free speech restricted here.

[C. Flower]

That's the question to pass on to the Minister.

Seems to me that any kind of political activity, while claiming a welfare payment, is outlawed. During the PAYE protests over 30 years ago similar things happened to any unemployed people photographed amongst the marchers.

I find it outrageous. Were they similarly docked I wonder if they were spotted turning out to vote FF ?

[C. Flower]

That's the question to pass on to the Minister.

Seems to me that any kind of political activity, while claiming a welfare payment, is outlawed. During the PAYE protests over 30 years ago similar things happened to any unemployed people photographed amongst the marchers.

I find it outrageous. Were they similarly docked I wonder if they were spotted turning out to vote FF ?

[Andrew49]

I find it outrageous. Were they similarly docked I wonder if they were spotted turning out to vote FF ?

Coincidentally it was a Fianna Fail administration - around 1979/80 and onwards at the time - that was doing it.

It appears that if you take part in any political activity (in public) between Monday and Saturday (both days inclusive) while receiving a job-seekers payment you are liable to be docked. Any decent barrister would run rings around this rule because it seems to me that the claimant would have had to have been 'occupying' Dame St. from Monday to Saturday ... every day in other words. I might be wrong here but isn't this payment on a weekly basis? If so the Welfare office would have to prove Stephen was 'occupying' Dame St each and everyday .... !?!?

One way of looking at this:

This official reaction to Stephen's political activity can be seen as a threat to the other 450,000 people also claiming job-seekers payment .....

[Andrew49]

Let's stick to the facts as far as we know them. No one is having their right to free speech restricted here.

As long as he keeps his political activity singular, silent and and out of the public gaze he's grand? Seems to me the unemployed are not only not to be seen, but also not to be heard.

[C. Flower]

Coincidentally it was a Fianna Fail administration - around 1979/80 and onwards at the time - that was doing it.

It appears that if you take part in any political activity (in public) between Monday and Saturday (both days inclusive) while receiving a job-seekers payment you are liable to be docked. Any decent barrister would run rings around this rule because it seems to me that the claimant would have had to have been 'occupying' Dame St. from Monday to Saturday ... every day in other words. I might be wrong here but isn't this payment on a weekly basis? If so the Welfare office would have to prove Stephen was 'occupying' Dame St each and everyday .... !?!?

One way of looking at this:

This official reaction to Stephen's political activity can be seen as a threat to the other 450,000 people also claiming job-seekers payment .....

Is this a written rule ? Whatever about Monday - Friday 9-5, Saturdays too ?

I'm wondering what the story is about all the unemployed Councillors who used to do full time politics at that time ?

[Andrew49]

Is this a written rule ? Whatever about Monday - Friday 9-5, Saturdays too ?

I'm wondering what the story is about all the unemployed Councillors who used to do full time politics at that time ?

The job-seekers payments cover all days except Sundays. Maybe there's one rule for ELECTED Councillors .....? on the other hand the powers-that-be like their unemployed, their excluded populations, to be cowed. One way of doing that is to ensure meagre subsistence payments, but only if a huge amount of hoops are jumped through. If you fail one hoop you lose everything.

[Baron von Biffo]

As long as he keeps his political activity singular, silent and and out of the public gaze he's grand? Seems to me the unemployed are not only not to be seen, but also not to be heard.

What restriction has been placed on his right to take part in political activity?

[C. Flower]

What restriction has been placed on his right to take part in political activity?

It appears that he has been penalised because of it.

[Andrew49]

What restriction has been placed on his right to take part in political activity?

He'll be weak from hunger - as a result of a dole cut.

[Baron von Biffo]

He'll be weak from hunger - as a result of a dole cut.

If he was employed and decided to take part in political activity rather than turning up to his job would his employer pay him?

[sinsin]

Could a SF or ULA TD raise it and discover who instigated it,
Gardai,politician or some idiot in the Department?

[Baron von Biffo]

It appears that he has been penalised because of it.

Not at all. It appears form the little we know of the case that his benefit has been suspended/terminated because he no longer meets the criteria for receiving it.

[Andrew49]

If he was employed and decided to take part in political activity rather than turning up to his job would his employer pay him?

I took part in the PAYE protests - way back - and never expected, nor received, payment for downing tools and joining the marches.

The dole though isn't a payment though - it's a subsistence allowance.

[Andrew49]

Not at all. It appears form the little we know of the case that his benefit has been suspended/terminated because he no longer meets the criteria for receiving it.

That would imply that he is 'occupying' Dame St. 24/7! That his activity is solely and totally concerned with the Occupy Dame St protest. This would also imply that the State/welfare services are out and about in Dame street identifying protestors ....

This smacks of State shenanigans and, no surprise, they pick on the most vulnerable to send out a warning to 450,000 people ....

Meanwhile €700,000,000 is going out the backdoor ......

[Baron von Biffo]

I took part in the PAYE protests - way back - and never expected, nor received, payment for downing tools and joining the marches.

The dole though isn't a payment though - it's a subsistence allowance.

I too was docked in 81 because I went on a tax march instead of going to work. The point is that whether employed or unemployed your income depends on meeting certain criteria, fail to meet them and you lose the income.

What's at the heart of this thread is that we're not a people of laws. We don't want the rules applied in this case because we approve of his politics. Contrast the position taken in this thread with the opinions expresses this one (http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=7547). In the other thread we want to circumscribe someone's right to earn a living, not because she's broken any rule but because we disapprove of her politics.

The motivation behind this thread may be more noble but the thinking is what got us into this mess. It's a call for light touch regulation for the 'right' people rather than equal application of the law for all.

[Andrew49]

We've just voted in a referendum to deny the State the power to traduce citizens .. and here they go traducing a person on the dole. I wonder how many attorneys general will write to the media condemning the State's actions on this specific case?

[Baron von Biffo]

That would imply that he is 'occupying' Dame St. 24/7! That his activity is solely and totally concerned with the Occupy Dame St protest. This would also imply that the State/welfare services are out and about in Dame street identifying protestors ....

This smacks of State shenanigans and, no surprise, they pick on the most vulnerable to send out a warning to 450,000 people ....

All it implies is that he doesn't meet the criteria for payment of JB/JA.

Unemployed people can retain their benefits while doing some voluntary work (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/voluntary_work_and_social_welfare_payments.html) but it's unreasonable to expect to be paid the dole if you're a full time political activist.

If a case like this came before the courts the test applied would be what would a reasonable person acting reasonably believe. I suggest that a reasonable person would accept that full time political activity during normal business hours would mean someone couldn't be really seeking work.


Meanwhile €700,000,000 is going out the backdoor ......

Which has no bearing on the rules for getting the dole.

[Baron von Biffo]

We've just voted in a referendum to deny the State the power to traduce citizens .. and here they go traducing a person on the dole. I wonder how many attorneys general will write to the media condemning the State's actions on this specific case?

Has the state broken the law in this case?

[Seán Ryan]

It should be pointed out that lots of folks who are encamped on Dame st are employed. They get up in the morning, go to work and arrive back at the camp afterwards.

In other words, being at the camp is not proof at all that one is not available for suitable work or looking for it.

And again, Steven was entitled to a convened hearing, where he got to make his case, prior to being cut off.

This is disgusting on many levels.

[C. Flower]

All it implies is that he doesn't meet the criteria for payment of JB/JA.

Unemployed people can retain their benefits while doing some voluntary work (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/voluntary_work_and_social_welfare_payments.html) but it's unreasonable to expect to be paid the dole if you're a full time political activist.

If a case like this came before the courts the test applied would be what would a reasonable person acting reasonably believe. I suggest that a reasonable person would accept that full time political activity during normal business hours would mean someone couldn't be really seeking work.

Which has no bearing on the rules for getting the dole.


You appear to be making an assumption that he is a full time activist and not available to work or seeking work. If that is the case, on what information are you basing your conclusion ?

All I know is that he says he was told his benefit was stopped because he had been at ODS.

[Baron von Biffo]

You appear to be making an assumption that he is a full time activist and not available to work or seeking work. If that is the case, on what information are you basing your conclusion ?

All I know is that he says he was told his benefit was stopped because he had been at ODS.

His own words quoted in your OP are "I have been attending Occupy Dame Street protests and giving interviews on RTE, Irish public television". That suggests to me that he's not just casually associated with the camp.

You'll recall that in another thread (http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=8845) we discussed the legal maxim Omnia praesumunter rite esse acta , the presumption that a thing is lawfully done unless the contrary is proved. That applies to this case as much as any other.

If Bennett believes that he has been singled out for unfavourable treatment by the state because of his political beliefs then he can go to the courts and make his case. If he does then the deciding officer will have to explain what he based his decision on.

On the balance of probabilities and based on the very limited information we have, I'm inclined to accept that the decision was correct.

[fluffybiscuits]

His own words quoted in your OP are "I have been attending Occupy Dame Street protests and giving interviews on RTE, Irish public television". That suggests to me that he's not just casually associated with the camp.

You'll recall that in another thread (http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=8845) we discussed the legal maxim Omnia praesumunter rite esse acta , the presumption that a thing is lawfully done unless the contrary is proved. That applies to this case as much as any other.

If Bennett believes that he has been singled out for unfavourable treatment by the state because of his political beliefs then he can go to the courts and make his case. If he does then the deciding officer will have to explain what he based his decision on.

On the balance of probabilities and based on the very limited information we have, I'm inclined to accept that the decision was correct.

I think what is more at issue here is did the SW follow the correct procedures and was he given fair treatement in line with everyone else whom may be on the dole. Normal practice is to ask them to provide some evidence that they are looking for work in the form of refusal letters, e mails, application forms etc and these be presented every month or otherwise at the social welfare offices. Bennett perhaps may have been singled out on his political beliefs but proving such would be a nightmare. What he could look at is whether the social failed to follow their own rules in which case he could take them to court ....

[Baron von Biffo]

I think what is more at issue here is did the SW follow the correct procedures and was he given fair treatement in line with everyone else whom may be on the dole. Normal practice is to ask them to provide some evidence that they are looking for work in the form of refusal letters, e mails, application forms etc and these be presented every month or otherwise at the social welfare offices.

As I said above Omnia praesumunter rite esse acta applies. We have only a short statement from one side on which to base our view of the thing and even that wouldn't lead one to the conclusion that procedure wasn't followed.



Bennett perhaps may have been singled out on his political beliefs but proving such would be a nightmare. What he could look at is whether the social failed to follow their own rules in which case he could take them to court ....

To make a political persecution case you'd have to say why this particular individual was singled out. There are protests over Corrib and Tullamore that are causing substantial harm to public policy and running up huge costs for the taxpayer so why are the professional protesters involved in those having their dole stopped?

Surely it would make more sense to target them than to go after someone associated with the woolly and innocuous Dame St camp.

[fluffybiscuits]

As I said above Omnia praesumunter rite esse acta applies. We have only a short statement from one side on which to base our view of the thing and even that wouldn't lead one to the conclusion that procedure wasn't followed.

Agreed :)





To make a political persecution case you'd have to say why this particular individual was singled out. There are protests over Corrib and Tullamore that are causing substantial harm to public policy and running up huge costs for the taxpayer so why are the professional protesters involved in those having their dole stopped?

Surely it would make more sense to target them than to go after someone associated with the woolly and innocuous Dame St camp.

What is more high profile at the moment though?

[Baron von Biffo]

Agreed :)


What is more high profile at the moment though?

Dame St. wouldn't have a hugely high profile and it's not causing the government any trouble because it's too nebulous.

[fluffybiscuits]

Dame St. wouldn't have a hugely high profile and it's not causing the government any trouble because it's too nebulous.

Ah I know that but Corrib and the rest are but distant memories when along side Occupy Dame St which is even just a drop in the ocean of a global movement

[sinsin]

Dame St. wouldn't have a hugely high profile and it's not causing the government any trouble because it's too nebulous.

Wrong.
It is very very dangerous to our rulers.
It is highlighting the beast,
Central Banking.
The cause of the global collapse.

Who owns the Irish Central Bank?
Try weave your way through that maze.:confused::rolleyes:

[Murra]

In effect, he IS looking for work - at least, by being proactive he is trying to re-establish the conditions under which there just might be employment to be had in Ireland again.

[antiestablishmentarian]

[QUOTE]Wrong.
It is very very dangerous to our rulers.
It is highlighting the beast,
Central Banking.
The cause of the global collapse.
The cause of the crisis is declining profit margins, intense competition and an extension of credit to compensate for wage cuts while maintaining core western markets, as well as extensive deregulation of the financial system. Not some shady central bankers conspiracy.


Who owns the Irish Central Bank?
no doubt you will enlighten us :)


Try weave your way through that maze.:confused::rolleyes:
:eek:

[Kev Bar]

Jobseeker's Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance are payments for people who are looking for jobs. The rules state that in order to qualify on must, inter alia, be 'Be available for and genuinely seeking work'. It's difficult to see how someone who's involved full time in political activity would meet that criterion.

To put it in perspective, imagine the outrage that would erupt here if it emerged that someone was drawing the dole while working full time in a FG TDs office.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/jobseekers_benefit.html#l1f4da

Come on Baron,
You cld extend that logic to say that by sitting here posting opinions I am not available for work.

Similarly anyone devoting some time helping the Vincent de Paul was equally guilty.

Is there a geographic aspect to being available and looking for work.

There are these devices called mobile phones.

[C. Flower]

I too was docked in 81 because I went on a tax march instead of going to work. The point is that whether employed or unemployed your income depends on meeting certain criteria, fail to meet them and you lose the income.

What's at the heart of this thread is that we're not a people of laws. We don't want the rules applied in this case because we approve of his politics. Contrast the position taken in this thread with the opinions expresses this one (http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=7547). In the other thread we want to circumscribe someone's right to earn a living, not because she's broken any rule but because we disapprove of her politics.

The motivation behind this thread may be more noble but the thinking is what got us into this mess. It's a call for light touch regulation for the 'right' people rather than equal application of the law for all.

As I wrote the OP, I'm in the position to say what the motivation for this thread is. It is to highlight a case in which it appears (on the basis of the facts known so far) that someone has had their benefit stopped and the reason given was that they had attended a legal public protest.

There are civil rights issues here. With 450,000 people unemployed due to failures of government and the system, they have every right to take part in protests.

You have helpfully highlighted the fact that a government website gives a favourable mention to the idea of voluntary work by people on benefits.

It states that this matter is at the discretion of the individual officer. In the absence of guidelines, that is open to unfairness and bias by the officer.

Perhaps there are guidelines on this, but imo, whether there are or not, the officer is obliged as a public servant to be politically neutral, by his or her own conditions of employment, and it is clearly a sensitive decision over which care must be taken, and the person under threat of losing benefit should have right of appeal, and emergency payment until that appeal is heard. (I'm aware that emergency payment is discretionary, but no one should be cast adrift without a cent if they have lodged an appeal).

If Steven Bennett wishes to be a full time activist (I have no idea if this is the case) then he would have to find a way of funding that through one or other organisation that might support him.

That is not the issue in my OP.

The fact that there is track record in Ireland of people having benefits stopped in the past on political grounds (taking part in a march) is shocking.

Civil rights in Ireland, including freedom of speech and trade union rights, are very limited compared with many countries. They are not so thick on the ground that we can afford to concede any further erosion.

It is also worrying that decisions for emergency support are seen as "going against the decision of a colleague." I totally understand what this must be like.
It would be much better if they could be taken in conditions in which the applicant gets a clean slate assessment without baggage and without pressure on the deciding person of any kind, just on the merits of the case as they see them.

[culmore]

Great decision by social Welfare, they should check out everyone and the bill would be halfed in my opinion, BUT they must (Revenue) also check out Bertie and his likes and use the same rules.

[Fraxinus]

Yep dole people should be confined to their homes and only leave when scouring the country for jobs. Doing the shopping should also be prohibited unless they are handing out CVs at the same time. Those on the dole must realise that it is the state who supports them through this tough period which the state had no hand in creating and they should not bite the hand that feeds them.

[Baron von Biffo]

Come on Baron,
You cld extend that logic to say that by sitting here posting opinions I am not available for work.

It comes back to the 'reasonable person' test. Would a reasonable person, taking all the evidence into consideration, accept that a claimant was genuinely seeking work or not? We don't have all the evidence so all we can do is assess the bit we have.

There are 4 possibilities -


The Deciding Officer made the correct decision.
The Deciding Officer made a genuine error.
The Deciding Officer is acting arbitrarily and capriciously.
Bennett is the subject of political persecution.


Legally the presumption is that the Deciding Officer made the correct decision. Bennett can appeal the decision and if he's unsatisfied with that he can look to the courts for relief.


Similarly anyone devoting some time helping the Vincent de Paul was equally guilty.

It's a matter of eligibility, not guilt or innocence. It's possible to do voluntary work while retaining SW benefits.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/voluntary_work_and_social_welfare_payments.html


Is there a geographic aspect to being available and looking for work.

Only in so much as you cannot put unreasonable restrictions on the location of the work.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/jobseekers_allowance.html#l1f4da

[fluffybiscuits]

Great decision by social Welfare, they should check out everyone and the bill would be halfed in my opinion, BUT they must (Revenue) also check out Bertie and his likes and use the same rules.

Heaven forbid the man should happen to walk to the shops and not have a job application on him while he is going. There is people out now walking past my house in Kilmainham , they are waiting on a bus but I suspect they are unemployed what should I do?:rolleyes:

Again people can be job hunting and have a right to be informed which doesnt appear to be the case with Steven. He appears to have being undermined by the govt perhaps for his political beliefs

[antiestablishmentarian]

Great decision by social Welfare, they should check out everyone and the bill would be halfed in my opinion, BUT they must (Revenue) also check out Bertie and his likes and use the same rules.

How do you propose the state deal with the resulting social chaos as close on 8-9% of the country's population and their dependents lose their only form of income with no readily available jobs? Martial law? Extermination? Internment? There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Bennett isn't actively seeking work, if you have evidence to suggest the contrary by all means go the SW offices or post it here to support the move made by the Dept of Social Protection.

[Baron von Biffo]

As I wrote the OP, I'm in the position to say what the motivation for this thread is. It is to highlight a case in which it appears (on the basis of the facts known so far) that someone has had their benefit stopped and the reason given was that they had attended a legal public protest.

Come now Boss, you're being a bit disingenuous there. In the OP you quote Bennett as saying "I have been attending Occupy Dame Street protests and giving interviews on RTE". That suggests a substantial involvement. The people on Dame St. may be a bit naive but they're hardly total idiots, they wouldn't have allowed someone who dropped in for a chat when he was walking the dog to become their spokesman in the national media.


There are civil rights issues here. With 450,000 people unemployed due to failures of government and the system, they have every right to take part in protests.

There's no question whatsoever of restricting the civil rights of unemployed people. If you qualify for SW you get it regardless of your politics. If you're engaged in some activity to the extent that you cannot be reasonably understood to be genuinely seeking work then you are not eligible for the dole. It doesn't matter if that's politics, sport, education or train-spotting.

This case is the same as a guard or a soldier being sacked if they join a political party - their civil rights are not being infringed but they have voluntarily opted to disqualify themselves from further employment as guards or soldiers.


You have helpfully highlighted the fact that a government website gives a favourable mention to the idea of voluntary work by people on benefits.

It states that this matter is at the discretion of the individual officer. In the absence of guidelines, that is open to unfairness and bias by the officer.

Perhaps there are guidelines on this, but imo, whether there are or not, the officer is obliged as a public servant to be politically neutral, by his or her own conditions of employment, and it is clearly a sensitive decision over which care must be taken, and the person under threat of losing benefit should have right of appeal, and emergency payment until that appeal is heard. (I'm aware that emergency payment is discretionary, but no one should be cast adrift without a cent if they have lodged an appeal).

Deciding officers may not act unfairly or in a biased fashion. Article 40 of the constitution guarantees equality before the law and we have a fundamental right to fair procedure. "[Fair procedure] means that courts, and all other bodies or persons making decisions that affect the individual, must act fairly] (Doolan. Principles of Irish Law. Sixth Ed. p77".


If Steven Bennett wishes to be a full time activist (I have no idea if this is the case) then he would have to find a way of funding that through one or other organisation that might support him.

That is not the issue in my OP.

Quite.


The fact that there is track record in Ireland of people having benefits stopped in the past on political grounds (taking part in a march) is shocking.

Civil rights in Ireland, including freedom of speech and trade union rights, are very limited compared with many countries. They are not so thick on the ground that we can afford to concede any further erosion.

I'd be interested in seeing what evidence you have for benefits being stopped on political grounds.


It is also worrying that decisions for emergency support are seen as "going against the decision of a colleague." I totally understand what this must be like.
It would be much better if they could be taken in conditions in which the applicant gets a clean slate assessment without baggage and without pressure on the deciding person of any kind, just on the merits of the case as they see them.

But the whole premise of this thread is that the merits of the case are irrelevant. All that matters is that Bennett espouses the 'correct' politics. Had he been doing for FF HQ what he was doing for Dame St. we would have readied the stake to burn him.

[fluffybiscuits]

http://www.facebook.com/LatinoRebels

Our friends at Latino Rebels retweetng this and on their facebook, get the storyu out there!

[Kev Bar]

Come now Boss, you're being a bit disingenuous there. In the OP you quote Bennett as saying "I have been attending Occupy Dame Street protests and giving interviews on RTE". That suggests a substantial involvement. The people on Dame St. may be a bit naive but they're hardly total idiots, they wouldn't have allowed someone who dropped in for a chat when he was walking the dog to become their spokesman in the national media.



There's no question whatsoever of restricting the civil rights of unemployed people. If you qualify for SW you get it regardless of your politics. If you're engaged in some activity to the extent that you cannot be reasonably understood to be genuinely seeking work then you are not eligible for the dole. It doesn't matter if that's politics, sport, education or train-spotting.

This case is the same as a guard or a soldier being sacked if they join a political party - their civil rights are not being infringed but they have voluntarily opted to disqualify themselves from further employment as guards or soldiers.



Deciding officers may not act unfairly or in a biased fashion. Article 40 of the constitution guarantees equality before the law and we have a fundamental right to fair procedure. "[Fair procedure] means that courts, and all other bodies or persons making decisions that affect the individual, must act fairly] (Doolan. Principles of Irish Law. Sixth Ed. p77".



Quite.



I'd be interested in seeing what evidence you have for benefits being stopped on political grounds.



But the whole premise of this thread is that the merits of the case are irrelevant. All that matters is that Bennett espouses the 'correct' politics. Had he been doing for FF HQ what he was doing for Dame St. we would have readied the stake to burn him.

Ok Baron - take the Vincent De Paul example.

Also there is nothing stopping him from carrying a phone and responding to offers whike there.

The comparasion with a soldier is spurious.

So, to meet your criteria, what do you have to do, sit at home all day?

People beg on the dole.

I wld not be surprised if some of Grafton St's living statuea claim.

So who draws the line and where?

The suspicion that the act is politically motivated seems valid.

[Matt2]

In general, it's a question of whether someone is deemed available for work / seeking work - at the discretion of the officer, but I guess with right to (slow) appeal.

I can't see that being in Dame Street makes someone less available for work than sitting at home.

Available for work does not mean waiting at home by the phone; this was deliberate and contrived.
People are allowed to spend their time as they see fit when in receipt of payments; volutantary work is allowed, for instance. It is only when the candidate is not actively seeking work, or refuses consecutive offers of employment or training that they will look at his case - and then payment is only reduced; not stopped.
'Discretion' is the key word here, and the discretion operated in the same way that saw normal procedure transcended in the Biffo-on-the-jacks case; ie; a directive from 'above' somewhere.
Emergency payment should not have been refused. And this is all going to have to be repaid to him down the line as they don't have a valid case.
A valid case would mean proving that he was not making any attempts to look for work during his time on the site, and was refusing offers of jobs that became available. Anybody can be getting papers, clling to Fas, sending letters/e-mails, etc - during the rota system that I believe is in place in Dame Street.

I'd say it is the beginning of a smear campaign on the protestors.

[disability student]

Think it's a politically moviated as it's unpredecented. It's an attempt to scare some of the unemployed protestors off the street in particular in relation to the protests under the Central bank.

There is practically no jobs out there as no sign of FG/Lab jobs stimulus programme at all anywhere. All they (FG/Lab) were saying out loud..... austerity austerity austerity programme. Is it depressing coming from their side ???

None of the positvity ,which was a buzzword used by SG often and no wonder he got the votes before he was exposed.

[Baron von Biffo]

Ok Baron - take the Vincent De Paul example.

Also there is nothing stopping him from carrying a phone and responding to offers whike there.

The comparasion with a soldier is spurious.

So, to meet your criteria, what do you have to do, sit at home all day?

People beg on the dole.

I wld not be surprised if some of Grafton St's living statuea claim.

So who draws the line and where?

Well the first point to get across is they're not my criteria they're the criteria set out by the Dept of SW.

The line is drawn initially by the Deciding Officer (DO). If a claimant is unsatisfied by that decision he can appeal. If he remains unsatisfied he can go to the courts.

Claimants must be available for and genuinely seeking work. Since people are not products to be batch processed, how that is assessed must of necessity vary from person to person. For example it would be unreasonable to expect an illiterate farm labourer to look for jobs online but it would be reasonable to expect a truck driver to keep his licence current if he claimed he was looking for driving jobs.

We don't know the details of the present case but Bennett himself is quoted in the OP as saying his SW was stopped because of his participation in Dame St. It would not be unreasonable for a DO to conclude that someone who was engaged in some activity on a whole-time or substantial basis was not available for and genuinely seeking work.

My example of the soldier or guard is perfectly valid. If you take up one of those jobs you do so knowing that you may not join a political party. That's not an infringement of your rights, it's a choice you make for yourself. By the same token, if you claim SW you do so knowing that you must continue to satisfy the criteria to receive payment. If your participation in a political activity is such that you no longer satisfy the criteria then it's not an infringement of your rights to cease the payment.

If someone on the dole was working as a full time volunteer for an FG TD would we support him if his dole was cut? We would not. In fact if you look at this thread (http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=7547) you'll see that we demanded that someone who had broken no law, rule or regulation should lose her livelihood because she's the wife of a politician we don't approve of.

Look through my posts (if you're feeling masochistic :)) and you'll see that in areas as diverse as taxation, planning and Rules of the Road I've consistently argued that if we have laws we should apply them evenly. Unfortunately that's not the way we do things in this country. We put the laws on the books for appearances sake but the minute an attempt is made to apply them we come over all persecuted.



The suspicion that the act is politically motivated seems valid.

Ah no it doesn't. If the state was going to go to the bother of political persecution it would surely go for a more dangerous figure than a spokesman for the Down With This Sort of Thing movement.

[Kev Bar]

Do we know for sure that the story is accurate?

[Kev Bar]

But Baron,

I think the new promotion of yellow pack internships is based on the fact that you are more likely to get a job if you are doing something rather than nothing.

[Baron von Biffo]

Do we know for sure that the story is accurate?

:D Now there's a thought.

[Baron von Biffo]

But Baron,

I think the new promotion of yellow pack internships is based on the fact that you are more likely to get a job if you are doing something rather than nothing.

They're more based on IBEC/ISME writing government policy.

[disability student]

They're more based on IBEC/ISME writing government policy.

Why is FG/Lab govt listening to them not us or sme's???:mad:

[C. Flower]

My example of the soldier or guard is perfectly valid. If you take up one of those jobs you do so knowing that you may not join a political party. That's not an infringement of your rights, it's a choice you make for yourself. By the same token, if you claim SW you do so knowing that you must continue to satisfy the criteria to receive payment. If your participation in a political activity is such that you no longer satisfy the criteria then it's not an infringement of your rights to cease the payment.

Unemployment is involuntary. Why are you mentioning guards and soldiers who voluntarily take up their jobs? You say yourself that the criteria allow for voluntary activity.


If someone on the dole was working as a full time volunteer for an FG TD would we support him if his dole was cut? We would not. In fact if you look at this thread (http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=7547) you'll see that we demanded that someone who had broken no law, rule or regulation should lose her livelihood because she's the wife of a politician we don't approve of.

You are making the unwarranted assumption that this was full time. Many unemployed people have been Councillor's and so far as I know held on to their benefits while doing political work full time. I see no reason why someone shouldn't do some unpaid constituency work while unemployed.

We did not take an agreed line on the spouse - the issue was favouritism - not who she was married to. I think all public posts should be advertised and the best qualified person appointed.


Ah no it doesn't. If the state was going to go to the bother of political persecution it would surely go for a more dangerous figure than a spokesman for the Down With This Sort of Thing movement.

He was apparently interviewed on RTE tv at least once. All it took was for the officer to recognise him - no great tracking down needed.

[Baron von Biffo]

Unemployment is involuntary. Why are you mentioning guards and soldiers who voluntarily take up their jobs? You say yourself that the criteria allow for voluntary activity.

The two cases are the same in that loss of income flows from choices freely made.

From the CiC link I posted earlier - "To get Jobseeker's Allowance or Jobseeker's Benefit you must be available and looking for work. If you want to do voluntary work, you must first get permission from a Deciding Officer at your Social Welfare Local Office. You must continue to satisfy the conditions of your jobseeker’s payment. " Had Bennett obtained prior permission the DO would hardly have stopped his payment.


You are making the unwarranted assumption that this was full time. Many unemployed people have been Councillor's and so far as I know held on to their benefits while doing political work full time. I see no reason why someone shouldn't do some unpaid constituency work while unemployed.

Again, that's the Irish way of doing things that I was talking about earlier - The law doesn't suit us so we apply what we think it should be rather than what it is. If we enforced our laws consistently then it would show up those that are flawed or outdated and we could amend or repeal them. We don't do that. We prefer 'light touch regulation' or cute hoor strokes.


We did not take an agreed line on the spouse - the issue was favouritism - not who she was married to. I think all public posts should be advertised and the best qualified person appointed.

The issue was very much that she was the TDs wife. There were even outrageous suggestions about her getting pregnant as a financial stroke. And without re-opening that thread here - it wasn't a public post, it was a private post paid for out of public monies.

It's relevant here because despite the fact that no law was broken we were outraged because the people involved had the 'wrong' politics. We might like there to be a law covering it but their isn't but that didn't prevent calls for her to lose her job. In the present case the person involved has the 'correct' politics so we argue that the rules shouldn't apply to him. It's a double standard.


He was apparently interviewed on RTE tv at least once. All it took was for the officer to recognise him - no great tracking down needed.

Well that shoots the political persecution theory down in flames.

[C. Flower]

[QUOTE=Baron von Biffo;197154]The two cases are the same in that loss of income flows from choices freely made.

From the CiC link I posted earlier - "To get Jobseeker's Allowance or Jobseeker's Benefit you must be available and looking for work. If you want to do voluntary work, you must first get permission from a Deciding Officer at your Social Welfare Local Office. You must continue to satisfy the conditions of your jobseeker’s payment. " Had Bennett obtained prior permission the DO would hardly have stopped his payment.


Political protest is not work. No-one is paid for doing it.

Also there would be privacy implications of requiring everyone who takes part in it should first report it to the State. The Data Protection Act recognises that information about a persons political beliefs is in a "sensititve" category.


Again, that's the Irish way of doing things that I was talking about earlier - The law doesn't suit us so we apply what we think it should be rather than what it is. If we enforced our laws consistently then it would show up those that are flawed or outdated and we could amend or repeal them. We don't do that. We prefer 'light touch regulation' or cute hoor strokes.

This is not to do with consistency. I would be happy for everyone who is available for work, and actively seeking it, to be able to take part in political protest. Or go running, or to the library. Or read a newspaper.


The issue was very much that she was the TDs wife.

Yes, the issue was that she got the job because she was the TDs wife, without any opportunity for anyone else to apply. This is inconsistent with the public sector appointment system. It was nothing to do with the politics of the TD.


Well that shoots the political persecution theory down in flames.

It appeared from the OP that it was a decision of the local office: the impact of the decision as recounted by Steven Bennett was that he was penalised for having protested. Given that peoples' rights to political expression are important civil rights, imo, the state has an obligation to safeguard them.

[Baron von Biffo]

Political protest is not work. No-one is paid for doing it.

Voluntary work is by definition, unpaid.


Also there would be privacy implications of requiring everyone who takes part in it should first report it to the State. The Data Protection Act recognises that information about a persons political beliefs is in a "sensititve" category.

Nothing in the Data Protection Act prevents a person discussing their business with the state or its agents. The DPA just requires that the data thus gather be protected against improper access.

In claiming SW one is entering into a contract whereby payment is made subject to the claimant meeting certain criteria. One of the terms of the contract is that voluntary work must get prior approval.


This is not to do with consistency. I would be happy for everyone who is available for work, and actively seeking it, to be able to take part in political protest. Or go running, or to the library. Or read a newspaper.

Your dole can't be cut for taking part in a political protest, running, going to the library or reading a newspaper. You can only lose benefits if you no longer meet the criteria for receiving them.


Yes, the issue was that she got the job because she was the TDs wife, without any opportunity for anyone else to apply. This is inconsistent with the public sector appointment system. It was nothing to do with the politics of the TD.

Once again, it wasn't a public appointment, it was a private appointment funded by the state.

In that case no law or rule was broken yet there were demands for her to lose her job because we don't approve of her husband's politics. In this thread we're arguing that individuals should be allowed to retain SW regardless of whether they meet the criteria so long as they are involved in political activity we approve of.


It appeared from the OP that it was a decision of the local office: the impact of the decision as recounted by Steven Bennett was that he was penalised for having protested.

If he got a job his dole would be stopped. Does that mean the state is penalising him for going to work? Of course not. It simply means that he no longer qualified for the payment so it was ceased.


Given that peoples' rights to political expression are important civil rights, imo, the state has an obligation to safeguard them.

If a serving guard joined the Dame St. people and appeared on RTE as their spokesman he would be sacked. Would that be a violation of his civil rights?

[fluffybiscuits]

Voluntary work is by definition, unpaid.



Nothing in the Data Protection Act prevents a person discussing their business with the state or its agents. The DPA just requires that the data thus gather be protected against improper access.

In claiming SW one is entering into a contract whereby payment is made subject to the claimant meeting certain criteria. One of the terms of the contract is that voluntary work must get prior approval.



Your dole can't be cut for taking part in a political protest, running, going to the library or reading a newspaper. You can only lose benefits if you no longer meet the criteria for receiving them.

Once again, it wasn't a public appointment, it was a private appointment funded by the state.

In that case no law or rule was broken yet there were demands for her to lose her job because we don't approve of her husband's politics. In this thread we're arguing that individuals should be allowed to retain SW regardless of whether they meet the criteria so long as they are involved in political activity we approve of.



If he got a job his dole would be stopped. Does that mean the state is penalising him for going to work? Of course not. It simply means that he no longer qualified for the payment so it was ceased.



If a serving guard joined the Dame St. people and appeared on RTE as their spokesman he would be sacked. Would that be a violation of his civil rights?


However he just had his benefits stopped . If he can prove he was claiming and looking for work then the Social Welfare had no business cutting him off. Stevens work down at the camp is in no way or can in no way imply that he is not looking for work . Think you are clutching at straws Baron. What this appears to be is a concentrated smear campaign to discredit the Occupy movement by some lackie in government.

[fluffybiscuits]

E mail back from Joan Burtons office

They said Steven is more than welcome to speak to them :)

[Baron von Biffo]

However he just had his benefits stopped . If he can prove he was claiming and looking for work then the Social Welfare had no business cutting him off. Stevens work down at the camp is in no way or can in no way imply that he is not looking for work . Think you are clutching at straws Baron.

He has a right to appeal and if that's unsuccessful he has a right to take his case to the courts.


What this appears to be is a concentrated smear campaign to discredit the Occupy movement by some lackie in government.

There's not a jot of evidence to support that.

Ask yourself why, if the government wanted to go after protesters, it opted to target the least threatening, least disruptive protest in the country? Why target that particular person? How did the government hope to smear the protesters by keeping silent about it?

[fluffybiscuits]

He has a right to appeal and if that's unsuccessful he has a right to take his case to the courts.



There's not a jot of evidence to support that.

Ask yourself why, if the government wanted to go after protesters, it opted to target the least threatening, least disruptive protest in the country? Why target that particular person? How did the government hope to smear the protesters by keeping silent about it?

Its the most high profile protest in the country out of the whole lot. Would it not make sense to try and remove him from the protest by removing his benefits in order to throw the protest into disarray? Steven is one of the organisers and while he doesnt lead it he puts a lot hard work into it..

[Baron von Biffo]

Its the most high profile protest in the country out of the whole lot.

I'd suggest that the Shell to Sea crowd are more high profile and considerably more disruptive and expensive to the taxpayer.


Would it not make sense to try and remove him from the protest by removing his benefits in order to throw the protest into disarray? Steven is one of the organisers and while he doesnt lead it he puts a lot hard work into it..

How do you throw a group with no leaders and no goals into disarray? How would you know if you had succeeded?

[fluffybiscuits]

I'd suggest that the Shell to Sea crowd are more high profile and considerably more disruptive and expensive to the taxpayer.



How do you throw a group with no leaders and no goals into disarray? How would you know if you had succeeded?


By forcing one of the users to quit. Its like constructive dismissal, he feels so put down and so bullied that he jacks in his job . You would know he succeeds by him jacking in his position as an organiser and helper for the marchers. Why they may have no person there to be a leader and tell them what to do there is certainly a number of people whom are influencing the dynamics of a group . Shell to Sea have faded into the background at the moment, with all the talk about the economy there is not much room for them in the media it appears.

[Baron von Biffo]

By forcing one of the users to quit. Its like constructive dismissal, he feels so put down and so bullied that he jacks in his job . You would know he succeeds by him jacking in his position as an organiser and helper for the marchers. Why they may have no person there to be a leader and tell them what to do there is certainly a number of people whom are influencing the dynamics of a group . Shell to Sea have faded into the background at the moment, with all the talk about the economy there is not much room for them in the media it appears.

Shell to Sea is causing huge problems by holding up provision of a major infrastructure project. They are draining scarce resources away from areas where they're needed.

Dame St. is a bunch of pleasant people in tents getting their jollies by having little squabbles with the SWP but otherwise not causing anyone any problems.

[fluffybiscuits]

Shell to Sea is causing huge problems by holding up provision of a major infrastructure project. They are draining scarce resources away from areas where they're needed.

Dame St. is a bunch of pleasant people in tents getting their jollies by having little squabbles with the SWP but otherwise not causing anyone any problems.

Which has more media coverage at the moment though?