Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

Can you please categorically state that not ONE individual, mandated to the Work Programme was forced, under threat of punishment, to undertake an unpaid work placement when receiving no pay from the employer or receiving No CASH benefits from the state.

If you cannot or will not conform the above it would necessarily mean that the DWP intentionally or unintentionally perjured themselves in the High Court when defending the charges levelled by Ms Reilly and that the press releases issued by your department post the High Court judgement were economic with the truth and designed to mislead the general public

Yours faithfully,

James Spencer-Gray

DWP freedom-of-information-requests, Department for Work and Pensions

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been accepted by the DWP FoI mailbox.
 
By the next working day your request will be forwarded to the relevant
information owner within the Department who will respond to you direct. 
 
If your email is a Freedom of Information request you can normally
expect a response within 20 working days.
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request do
please contact us.
 
For further information on the Freedom of Information Act within DWP
please click on the link below.
 
[1]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...

no-reply@dwp.ecase.co.uk on behalf of DWP Strategy Freedom of Information, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Spencer-Gray,

I am writing in response to your request for information, received 24th
September.

Yours sincerely,

DWP Central FoI Team

James Spencer-Gray

Dear [email address] on behalf of DWP Strategy Freedom of Information,

Thank you for your very comprehensive reply and forceful declaration that your department has never "mandated participation on any of its employment programmes amounts to forced labour".

If irrefutable evidence can be provided that an individual was sent a letter of punishment for not attending a mandated work placement, by one of your regional departments, (i.e. Essex DWP) whilst NOT RECEIVING ANY CASH PAYMENTS, what action would your department take?

An open and transparent review would be undertaken or not?

Kind regards

James Spencer-Gray

Yours sincerely,

James Spencer-Gray

no-reply@dwp.ecase.co.uk on behalf of DWP Strategy Freedom of Information, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Spencer-Gray,

I am writing in response to your request for information, received 21st
October.

Yours sincerely,

DWP Central FoI Team

James Spencer-Gray left an annotation ()

The DWP do not deny the fact that I was cruelly mandated to the Work Programme and duly censured for not undertaking a mandated work placement contrary to the law and by their own admission a period of "forced/compulsory labour.

However they clearly state that they are not prepared to undertake any investigation into this criminal act,

Has a "PRECEDENT" been set and slavery will be permitted in this country.

James Spencer-Gray

Dear [email address] on behalf of DWP Strategy Freedom of Information,

if irrefutable evidence was provided that this defining declaration was not completely true and an example of an individual mandated onto the Work Programme when not in receipt of any benefits and duly punished, although it was impossible for such punishment to be executed, what action would the DWP take?

Additionally what action would be taken when it was proved that a very senior member of the DWP deliberately tried to conceal the evidence just prior to the original; High Court action between Reilly
v the DWP.

The truth will come out regardless.

Yours sincerely,

James Spencer-Gray

James Spencer-Gray left an annotation ()

A very clear and precise answer, however it categorically proves that some, such as myself, are living proof that the DWP DID actually perjury themselves in court and have suffered from the vast mechanism of the state trying to conceal the fact, most notably from the Parliamentary Ombudsman that had demonstrated their corrupt attitude and that they are not fit for purpose.