Background facts:-

James Purnell and Jonathan Shaw have entered our ‘Hall of Shame’ since we brand them to be heartless, uncaring, and unscrupulous individuals. They seek to take, from the disabled members of our society, what little right they have to some small benefit - so as to help towards overcoming their disabilities.

Most of these citizens are elderly and have nevertheless, contributed to the wealth of our nation during their working lives, Some have disabilities from birth. Their only sin, in the eyes of this pair of thoroughly scurrilous individuals, is that they chose to re-locate to another E.E.A (European Economic Area) State, or Switzerland, so as to spend, in the main, the remaining years of their lives. Many of these citizens were in receipt of UK disability allowances/benefits and believed they had the right to receive those benefits after they had left the UK under the above circumstances. Indeed, many have advised us that they were told exactly that by members of the staff of the Department of Works and Pensions (D.W.P.)

However, through an error of law their allowances/benefits were wrongly classified by the EU Parliament and Council, which permitted the UK to withdraw any of those allowances/benefits where any citizens leaves the UK, albeit they relocate to elsewhere within the E.E.A, or Switzerland, as of the 1st June 1992 and our Government did just that.

The United Kingdom is a Member State of the European Union (E.U.) and we remain such by popular vote, following a national referendum. This membership places obligations upon all Member States to abide by the laws of the European Union. Not however, it seems, when your name is James Purnell, Jonathan Shaw or Rosie Winterton or the administrative staff of the D.W.P.

Included amongst those many laws we have a Social Chapter so as to allow us all, not only to move freely within the Member States but also the E.E.A and Switzerland, whether we be cross border workers, early retired Union citizens or where we are retired with a State pension, or through some disability and where we may continue to be entitled to receive certain benefits and allowances, in much the same way as citizens would be entitled to receive them where they continue to remain resident in the UK. The UK Government is a party to these agreements, which were adopted so as to provide equality of rights within the broader family of nations in Europe.

However, from time-to-time things do sometimes go wrong and mistakes are made and such a mistake was made with regard to the exportability of the ‘care’ element of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Attendance Allowance (AA) and Carers Allowance (CA), when in May 1992 these three allowances were wrongly classified under E.U. Regulations as non-exportable social security benefits and as of 1st June 1992 they were effectively withdrawn as exportable benefits/allowances by the United Kingdom government. We do no need to go into the mechanics of this, since that is dealt with elsewhere by us on our Association web site. 

The European Court of Justice (E.C.J.) in their ruling of 18 October 2007 (Case – C – 299/05), following an action brought by the EU Commission against the EU Parliament and Council, ruled that there had indeed, been a mistake at law and as a result that mistake was rectified and the effect of that ruling was that all those citizens, where any of the relevant allowances/benefits had been mistakenly withdrawn, now have a right to make a full recovery of all their previously lost allowances/benefits.

Indeed, so ruled His Honour Judge John Mesher, when sitting in the Upper Chamber of the Appeals Tribunal, a ‘Superior’ Court of the United Kingdom, when upholding the decision of the E.C.J. on 5th May 2009. (Case [2009] UKUT 81 (AAC) JS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions). Indeed, as this Court also sits as a Court of Judicial Review - this case may be cited as established case law by citizens of Finland and Sweden, since they were also a party to those proceedings before the E.C.J. on 18 October 2007.

The U.K. Government were represented at those proceedings before the E.C.J. and were indeed, rebuke by the Court when attempting delaying tactics. Also their submissions in opposition to the re-classification of these allowances/benefits to exportable sickness related benefits were rejected by the Court as being not founded in law.
We have to advise all our members and other visitors to this web site, that not only has James Purnell, assisted by Jonathan Shaw, resisted the ruling of the E.C.J. along with their predecessors from the very outset, they now choose to violate the most recent ruling by His Honour Judge John Mesher. Not only must this current shameful conduct by the pair of them be brought to an immediate end, we also consider that we should identify some of their other most dishonourable conduct. Not least where they have corrupted and incited those responsible for administering these allowances. Many of whom have been forced to obey this pair for fear for their own jobs.

In the meantime we draw your attention to the suffering and deprivation of so many of these disabled citizens and also where we have brought one case to the attention of the D.W.P. where one such invalid, who was wrongly disenfranchised of her right to a disability allowance, and where she was attempting to survive on as little as £27 a week. Since that time we have learned of another sad case where one of our fellow citizens is attempting to survive on as little as £15 a week. Purnell and Shaw would callously turn their backs on such fellow citizens, whilst he, Purnell and so many others of his most dishonourable colleagues have now been caught with their grubby little hands in the till of our tax payers hard earned money.

James Purnell - Ex Minister for the Department of Works and Pensions - Was the pressure getting to him?

Is one of those gang of people in our Parliament who considered he had a right to help himself to our money. Your money, whilst at the same time depriving those in such desperate need. He too had joined the ‘free for all’ brigade.
The ‘help yourself, but let’s keep it our secret.’ brigade.

What did Emile Zola have to say about this type of conduct of hiding the truth when reporting on the notorious and disgraceful ‘Alfred Dreyfus’ affair under the headline, ‘J’e Accuse’? - “If you shut t up truth and bury it under the ground, it will grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way”. We are indeed, now witnessing the wisdom of that statement.

What have so many of these dishonourable people said when caught, “It’s the system that’s wrong". The system which allowed us to do it”. That is a bit like a shoplifter defending his conduct by claiming, “It was the shop keepers fault for putting his goods out on display”! And then whilst being led screaming to the public pillory we have had to listen to mostly, “I made a mistake.” We believe like a true jury, that the public will decide that matter, especially where these thoroughly immoral and sometimes downright dishonest members of that place we used to call our Parliament, then exclaim. “I have” or, “I will pay the money back”. Article 2 (2) of the Theft Act of 1968 addresses that matter thus;  ......
A person's appropriation of property belong to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.

The excuses we, the taxpayers, have had to listen to appeared to come from a single pre-prepared script and all those rogues who have dishonoured the name of our Parliament, robbed us all of our heritage of that once respected place, now stand before us to account, when they all appear to be singing from the same hymn sheet.
What does Purnell  say about the disclosure in relation to his conduct: -

Well we can determine this from his own web site, where Purnell, when attempting to offer excuses to his constituents said, “You may have seen the Daily Telegraph story which makes serious accusations against me. I want to let local people know that what has been said is just plain wrong. The last few weeks have been deeply uncomfortable for anyone who believes that politics shouldn't be about getting rich but about making people's lives better. All politicians are under scrutiny and we have to answer to our constituents.” Yes,  you do Mr. Purnell and you may also have to answer to a higher authority, since whilst you and others were milking the ‘gravy train’of our taxpayers hard earned money, many of our State pensioners and the disabled where left to stew, often in abject poverty.

Purnell then went on to protest ‘that whilst owning a home in his constituency and another flat in London, he says he then moved into further accommodation, and sold his London flat, declaring he only had one home? What I did was within the rules of the taxman? You will all have seen the disclosures about him in the Daily Telegraph.~

Jonathan Shaw - Minister for the Disabled

So as to deny many disabled of their lawful rights, this same individual, together with James Purnell, has not only currently decided to defy European law handed down by the E.C.J.; he is now in defiance of the Upper Chamber of the Independent Appeals, Tribunal which is by definition a ‘Superior’ Court of the United Kingdom. Further, he has also shown arrogance and discourtesy towards another Member of Parliament, namely the Rt. Hon. Roger Gale MP, the Honourable Member for North Thanet, who has championed the rights of the disabled and challenged Jonathan Shaw over his most dishonourable conduct, where he now fails to answer his latest letter addressing this matter.
Those who visit Jonathan Shaw’s biography page will learn very little about the background of this very dubious and dishonourable member of parliament for the constituency of Chatham and Aylesford, other than he hails from ‘Snodland’ and was a former Kent fruit picker (We seek not insult fruit pickers), but perhaps that sums him up, although it does not explain his crass rudeness and arrogance, and his only call to fame? was that he completed a two year course in Social Care and worked as a care assistant for adults with learning disabilities. Jonathan Shaw tells us that in 1990 he qualified as a Social Worker and we all now know how so many social workers over the years have so badly let down those for whom we charged with the responsibility in certain areas of care.

He later worked in child protection, adoption, fostering and children leaving care. Another area of social work where we now know that some of them stand on their heads when making what should be responsible decisions about our children.

The writer of this ‘Hall of Shame’ page has himself had some considerable experience when having to advise and guide those engaged in this work, so as to properly remind them of their responsibility in relation to their duty of care in respect of children.

Many of our members will not be prepared to accept the latter qualifications alone for any Government appointment, and neither should they, especially following the many revelations about those who have aspired to this area of work over recent years and have failed us all, not least the responsibility many had for our children.
In October 2008 Jonathan Shaw’s rise to prominence, we suggest, was due to the fact that he could be relied upon to pay lip service to our most incompetent Prime Minister and for this reason he was moved sideways from his previous post, to become the Minister for the disabled with the responsibility for, among other related matters, ‘Equality and Human Rights’?, Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carers allowance. However, he has displayed an extremely callous approach to these duties as we shall see.

From the very first moment the E.C.J. delivered their verdict our government went into denial and used many nefarious excuses, including that they needed time to study the legal implications of what was a very readily understandable verdict. This farce went on for month after month from late 2007 and then into the current year 2009. Yet, despite pressure from outside bodies, such as ourselves, ‘Age Concern’ and many others, our Government still stubbornly refused to abide by and initiate the ruling of this Court.
We say that it was by no coincidence that in October 2008, when pressure began to mount in this matter, that this most dishonourable and thoroughly scurrilous individual, Jonathan Shaw, was moved by Gordon Brown to his current position as the Minister for the Disabled, since it is now clear that Gordon Brown considered that he could best be relied upon to prevent our disabled, mostly elderly citizens, from re-gaining their lawful rights to some small financial help with their disability.

We all know how our Prime Minister first addressed the natural rights of those most loyal, honoured and respected Gurkha soldiers. He ignored them in the hope they would go away. That is until you, the public, put pressure upon him, but only because of the dedicated sense of duty with honour and tenacity of purpose, shown by Joanna Lumley. Now finally all those most loyal and dedicated soldiers will be able to call the country they have served with such distinction their home. You may well ask, “Why did our government not do the most honourable thing from the outset?. Why was it that others outside that House had to shame our Government into doing the correct and most honourable thing? The writer of this page also served with these most loyal soldiers.

From the moment Jonathan Shaw took office he has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the proper rights of these disabled persons and only got up off his backside when challenged in the Parliament at Westminster by Roger Gale MP. Then followed a number of exchanges when it soon became clear that Jonathan Shaw had his own set of rules, a set of rules in defiance of the ruling by the E.C.J, a set of rules in order to prevent as many expatriate disabled citizens as possible from receiving any help with their disabilities.

Mr. Shaw’s defiance continues, even now, and despite a ruling on 5 May 2009, by His Honour Judge. John. Mesher when, sitting in the Upper Chamber of the Tribunal Appeal ( a Superior Court of the United Kingdom) the learned Judge upheld the ruling by the E.C.J of 18 October 2007, when he, in effect ruled, that Disability Living Allowance, less the ‘mobility’ element, should be re-instated to the date it had been withdrawn, since the error in law, as identified by the E.C.J. was an error from the very beginning ‘ab initio’.

The learned judge has gone even further. Gordon Brown and his puppets Purnell and Shaw will not like the fact that he has also given his opinion to the effect that, the ‘mobility’ element of DLA, is also a sickness related allowance/benefit. He has sent that matter back to the ECJ for further deliberation. We are quite confident that the E.C.J will support the opinion of his Honour Judge John Mesher.

Rosie Winterton - Minister for Pensions

In answer to a question by Roger Gale MP in the House on 2 February 2009 Rosie Winterton responded by most inaccurately stating, “We have been clear that if people claimed the benefit before they moved abroad, they are entitled to continue to claim it. For people who are eligible for it, it is frozen at the limit at which they received it before they left."

Quite a wrong, confused and muddle headed statement for any Minister to make, since your Secretary of State, James Purnell, aided by Jonathan Shaw, the ‘disabled’ Minister, had given no such instructions. And “No”, benefit/allowances awarded by the EU Member States may not  be frozen, at the level of receipt (prior to their leaving the U.K) following a Union citizen’s re-location to elsewhere within the E.E.A. or Switzerland. This response, which she did retract in a letter of 9th February, by this lady also displayed the thorough incompetence of Gordon Brown for appointing her in the first place.

What else can we say about this lady, other than her complete failure in her former appointment as a Minister for Health when according to the Telegraph disclosure about her , she was in charge of introducing the NHS dental contract in 2006. Last year, the House of Commons Health Select Committee found that instead of improving access to N.H.S dentistry the reforms have made it worse. Hundreds of dentists have left the NHS after refusing to sign up to the contract. In the two years after the contract was introduced, 900,000 fewer people saw an NHS dentist than in the last two years of the previous system.

This lady was then moved to the post of Minister for Pensions, but her salary of £104,050 was not sufficient for her needs and she continued to milk the fund maintained at the tax payers expense and over a 4 year period she helped herself to the tune of £86,277.00., for replacements of items and for the maintenance of her South London Home, including an attempt to get the tax payers to pay for the sound proofing of her bedroom. This woman was systematically putting her grubby little hands into the tax payers cookie jar and helping herself to so much of your money.

Conduct of the staff of the DWP

Now we look at the most inconsiderate conduct of the DWP from its executive administration to its point of delivery.

Terry Moran, the Chief Executive of this Department

What did this individual say to you last year, “I am delighted to present to you the first Business Plan for the Pension, Disability and Carers Service, which came into being on 1 April 2008.” He then went on to set out his objectives: - “continue to better support our decision makers and improve the quality of decisions for disabled customers through revised and simpler claim forms and new updated medical guidance”. He concluded with, “I want to pay tribute to our people. They have faced many challenges over the last few years and achieved remarkable things. We ask even more as we move into another period of our evolution; I know that I couldn’t wish to do it with a more committed workforce. Since that statement we can find no evidence where he has given any proper guidance to his staff in this present matter.
Meanwhile Mr Moran appears to have remained silent whilst his staff set about deceiving these disabled claimants, whilst acting under orders from Purnell and Shaw.

Vivien Hopkins

This lady is currently employed as an acting Chief Executive Officer, in the Pensions Disability and Carers Service of the D.W.P. This lady is either a very deceitful person, or a complete fool either way she is not fitted to hold the office. We have been privy to some of her letters where she also sought to most wrongly advise claimants as to the law and where she also displayed a clear intention to frustrate claimants, so as to deprive so many of their lawful rights.

Wendy Kettle - Team Leader

A team leader of the ‘Exportability Team of the DWP, advising the writer of this website page that, in respect of the decision by Judge John Mesher, she could not discuss individual cases. This lady has not the faintest understanding of the law which controls her and her department. This case was posted onto the internet at the behest of the judge so as to give guidance to the DWP and other lower levels of Tribunals. This lady, who has responsibility for those employed under her command, has revealed that she has in fact almost no knowledge of law, not least the proper authority and effect of case law. Further, she does not understand the level of authority of this Superior Court. She has shown now and in the past that she does not have the proper level of competence commensurate with her post. Nevertheless, she sends written replies to claimants, most wrongly advising them as to the law.

Advising claimants that they are ‘out of time’ with their claims when they had not.

(a) been properly advised by the D.W.P where they may have had some right to a claim following the ruling of the E.C.J of 18 October 2007

(b) where the D.W.P, even to this day, have still not set out the proper rights of those who had their benefit/allowance wrongly withdrawn through an error at law.

This is INEXCUSABLE conduct by a Government Department and until they do contact such claimants and do set out their rights of recovery, then the ‘out of time’ clock cannot start to tick. That is the law Ms. Kettle.

We now list a catalogue of shameful conduct by this office

It is also clear from the numerous complaints we have received, that Mr. Shaw’s department, responsible for dealing with claims by EEA (Switzerland) resident expatriate citizens, have been acting upon his advice, when they have done their utmost to frustrate claims by : -

By putting off claimants when advising them they were still in discussion with the E.U. Commission as recently as January of 2009, some 15 months after the E.C.J.’s decision, whereas, from our exchanges with the European Commission, we knew that to be untrue.

We have also received complaints about their bullying tactics when attempting to block legitimate claims. This has not only demoralized many rightful claimants it has also put them off making further attempts to seek justice in respect of their rightful claims.

1. The crass and complete failure by the D.W.P to contact all those where it was later ruled their allowances had been withdrawn through error, whereas this Department had and has a clear lawful obligation to do so.
   
   
2. By putting off claimants when advising them they were still in discussion with the E.U. Commission as recently as January of 2009, some 15 months after the E.C.J.’s decision, wherea, from our exchanges with the European Commission, we knew that to be untrue.
   
   
3.  We have also received complaints about their bullying tactics when attempting to block legitimate claims. This has not only demoralized many rightful claimants it has also put them off making further attempts to seek justice in respect of their rightful claims. 
          
4. Advising some claimants not to contact them again.
   
   
5. Inaccurately advising claimants as to the proper effect of the law
   
   
6. Sometimes refusing to discuss the matter with claimants.
    
   
7. Deliberately telling lies when writing to claimants or speaking with them over the telephone as to the proper effects of the law.
   
   
8. Wrongly advising claimants they have no right of appeal
   
   
9. In a number of cases informing claimants that they have destroyed their records, in conformity with the Data Protection Act, which required the DWP to destroy such records. This was a blatant lie, since the 2000 Act of Parliament demands no such thing.
   
   
10. Advising one claimant they had been notified of her death.
    
    
11. Advising a claimant they were not prepared to look at any claims prior to the ruling of the E.C.J. of 18 October 2007
    
    
12. Advising claimants that all claims arising prior to 18 October 2007 will have to be appealed to an Independent Tribunal in the full knowledge that Tribunals were already upholding such appeals. Deliberately employing this tactic so as to clog up the appeals procedure system.
    
    
13. Some minimal claims have been addressed, but only mostly where those claims post date the recent ruling by the E.C.J. Also here we have identified much inconsistency by the D.W.P.
    
    
14. In some instances wrongly substituting DLA with AA, an entirely separate benefit, with possible future entitlement implications, since the awards and criteria are different.
    
    
15. Wrongly advising claimants they were ‘out of time’ when seeking to have their claims re-instated following the ruling by the E.C.J, upon the grounds that they should have appealed when their allowances were first withdrawn. The claimants, of course, had no known lawful grounds for appeal prior to the most recent ruling by the E.C.J.
    The ‘error’ at law, in accordance with jurisprudence, can never be transferred back to the claimant/appellant. They are blameless and there is no authority at law which can then be brought to bear so as to penalize any citizen where the blame clearly lies elsewhere.
     
16. Openly and most blatantly defying the ruling by His Honour Judge J. Mesher who, whilst sitting in the Upper Chamber of the Appeals Tribunal, ruled in a case then under appeal that DLA, less the ‘mobility’ component element must be reinstated to the date it was withdrawn.
    
    
17. Advising claimants not to write again and that they will be contacted, whereas we have learned of no case where the D.W.P have then later contacted such claimants.
    
    
18. Advising claimants that the reason for delays in responding to their claims, “Due to the large number of claimants!” Whereas, we were fully aware that the D.W.P had not begun to process any of the relevant claims at that time.
    
    
19. The D.W.P reinstated one claim we have been advised about, where the reinstatement, even pre-dates 1st June 1992. Why? Was it by any coincidence that the claimant was employed in a Senior Government position?. Perhaps here we can now, to some extent, be compared with the Daily Telegraph newspaper.
    Yet more corruption!
    

The disgrace of Ministers James Purnell and Jonathan Shaw.

Even at this time The EU commission has referred a case in respect of one such of these refusals to reinstate back to the UK government asking for an investigation?

Our members and all those other disabled citizens, where they have found themselves being treated with such contempt and disdain, by Jonathan Shaw are entitled to ask him about the office he holds as a Minister for the Disabled where he has responsibility for Equality and Human Rights, and are fully justified in saying to him, ‘you are most unfitted for this post, where you have behaved more like a ‘Mafiosa Godfather’, rather than the Minister for the Disabled.

Further, the conduct of Purnell and Shaw must be viewed against the back drop where so many others of their close colleagues and we do not exclude such dishonourable members of the other side of the House, where they are alleged to have been found with their ‘dirty’ hands in the tax payers till.

Their conduct at best can be viewed as thoroughly immoral and most dishonourable and at worst in some cases downright dishonest. We leave that matter there as investigations are now under way, but conclude with this matter by saying that, it is the disabled and least who can afford it,  who are being deprived of their lawful entitlements by James Purnell and Jonathan Shaw.

Whilst we can identify the misapplication of the law by the claims processing office of his Department, there can be little doubt that the contemptible conduct being revealed from that office has been orchestrated by James Purnell through Jonathan Shaw, and even where Appeals Tribunals are now upholding appeals by claimants, Purnell and Shaw still show their contempt, not only towards the disabled, but towards the tax payers who have to meet the most unnecessary cost of such appeals, but even the ruling by such high judicial authority. Perhaps Jonathan Shaw will defend his despicable conduct by claiming that the expense saved when bullying the disabled to give up their lawful rights will offset the costs of the appeals.

We are now witnessing the conduct of a man who has given up any earlier emotions or any principles of care for the disabled he may have once had, when fulfilling his much more important ambition of his own self interest and the interest of his party when now in government.

We do not ask Gordon Brown to go at this time, since we have no wish to see the interruption of the investigative process which are now under way in that ‘place’, the place from where now flows revelations of so much dishonour and shame heaped upon our most respected democratic Houses of our Parliament. However, we have reached a point in time where Gordon Brown’s position is untenable.

We now say to Gordon Brown, “Sack these arrogant and uncaring individuals” and to them both we say, “Do the ‘decent thing’, if you are capable, and resign.”

We seek nothing less than your departure and in the words of Oliver Cromwell, when dismissing the Long Parliament, “It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

What is the relevance of such words. Well, it was only 42 years later when in 1695, that the then ‘Speaker’ of that same place was dismissed for his wayward conduct, and we have all yet again had to witness the spectacle of shame of our current Speaker, when for the first time since that date and where with ignominy, he was forced into resignation.

As an Association we say, “You who sit in that place have tarnished the very name of our Parliament. You have brought shame upon yourselves and your constituents. Between you and other members of your government you have betrayed the trust of the people.”

“We want to see the back of you.”

David R. Burrage. Legal advisor and co-founder.

Peter Woodall - Webmaster and co-founder