Allied Pensioners of New Zealand

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

Alison Steed.
The Telegraph.
telegraph.co.uk/expat.
London.

Allied Pensioners of NZ
http://www.apnz.org.nz/
frank@apnz.org.nz
Auckland 0792 N.Z.

Dear Ms Steed,

Regarding to your article in the Telegraph of the 19th -25th Aug. 2009, page 34 "How saving the pound led to 54 years of injustice". It appears to me that you and the International Consortium of British Pensioners (ICPB) have been fed a load of bull by the DWP!
The "facts" provided by the DWP for your article ("facts" also peddled to the ICPB members) are "echoes" of deliberate misconstrued half truths and absurdities, designed to confuse ALL members of the Nat. Insurance Fund (NIF).
These peddled "facts" hide the biggest swindle the world has seen since W W 2. This swindle is bigger than ENRON & Maxwell all rolled into one! I base this on my own personal victimization and on completely true facts, gleaned from 15 years of research, even though I have lived in NZ for over 40 years.
The first true fact is the 1066 A.D. Norman invasion of England that preceded further true facts of the signing of the International Instrument of the 1215 A.D. Magna Carta.
This was followed by the UN Human Rights Charter (UNHC), the European Convention on Human Rights First Protocol (ECHR), and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) C118, other facts that can be checked out as true.
All these true facts, protect the world-wide private property of any free person from the unlawful dispossession of their property by the Crown. These true facts also cover the millions of migrants (some who are ICPB members) who "deserted" to the Colonies, after surviving W W 2.
We "deserters" left behind Social Security (SS) CONTRIBUTORY entitlements (not to be confused with Social Welfare (SW) NON-contributory entitlements) to the NIF, which are our own private property protected by the International Instruments noted above.
Being a free person who has been dispossessed of my property by the Crown, I can say with the certainty, after 13years of democratic abuse, the DWP has been "coining" the enormous cash reserves of the NIF for its own use, by unlawfully receiving BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS, of pounds of NIF cash reserves.
Another completely true fact is the natural difference between SS and SW benefits/pensions. The ILO recognizes this difference in its C118, Article 2.6 (a), a recognition which is consistent with the completely true facts of all the other International Instruments.
The public are told that the State Pension is a "go as you pay" scheme, this is partly true as the SW part of the State Pension, being paid by the state, is dependent on the Budget but not the NIF SS, as it has cash reserves for fluctuations. A fact noted in your article.
Some 525,000 (10% who reside in NZ) NIF members living abroad from GB are being denied their annual SS entitlements up-rates, a completely true fact that builds up the NIF cash reserves. Again noted in your article.
Big pension fund cash reserves have a big attraction from "financial" experts, like Maxwell and ENRON. Unfortunately, the DWP is no different, but its methods are similar.
The method employed by the DWP is to instruct the Pension Service (PS) to maladminister the SS Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 chapter 4 (C&B), by applying s.113 (a) to the NIF contributory entitlements IF that member is abroad.
Section 113 (a) of the C&B is ONLY to be applied to the NON-contributory SW entitlements described in Parts II - V, NOT the NIF SS CONTRIBUTORY entitlements awarded by the conditions of Part I and the awarded entitlements described in Part II!
By this ultra vires action the NIF contributory reserves grow ex-potentially and are then transferred (laundered) to another destination. Where and how is two questions a competent reporter could answer (not that you are incompetent) by following the money.
This is the DWP spin, employed on the strict precedents of natural and statutory laws, by equating contributory to non-contributory.
This spin is accompanied by treating the public (and the media) with half truths, SS/SW facts taken out of context to deliberately confuse and ridicule any one who gets near the truth or ignore any requests for factual information etc.
How does the DWP restore overseas NIF SS pensions at the "frozen" rate? By applying the subordinate 1975 SS regs that restores some SW entitlements at the rate of first granting, as two wrongs do not make a right, it is called "spinning the law"!
According to Mr. Charles Constable, (PENSION SERVICE WHITEHALL II), the PS has the UK Govt authority of any SUBORDINATE SW reciprocal agreement, to implement the UK end of any agreement between the UK/NZ Govt.
Mr. Constable also stated that the International Pension Centre (IPC) has the (fiduciary) responsibility to ensure that overseas NIF members receive their correct SS entitlements, my words in brackets.
A UK e-mail, dated 2nd Aug 2002 and timed at 9:03 PM (NZ time), from a Suett John JUI IRD3, explained that SW NON-contributory social security benefits are NOT paid out of the NIF.
That e-mail is understandable as State Pension SW NON-contributory benefits are paid by the state UK Govt. This is consistent ILO C118 Article 2.6 (b).
The ICPB do not appear to realise that they have won their case as, back in the 2002 England and Wales High Court case, decision (2002) EWHC 978 (Admin) states in paragraph 10 [Mr Eadie, on behalf of the Secretary of State, accepted that the right to a contributory pension is protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol.] No offence intended to the ICBP but it that seems plain enough to me.
The First Protocol is contained in the 1952 ECHR and is consistent with the UN Charter and the Magna Carta. These International Instruments naturally, covers COMMERCIAL law. Under commercial law, annual up-rating of contributory pensions is obligatory!
Paragraph 9 of that 2002 EWHC decision, describes the narrow parameters of a state (SW) pension and a state pension can only be funded by an approbation (or Crown grant) from Parliament and is paid by the state or NON-contributory to the SW recipient.
This is confirmed in paragraph 15 of the 2003 England and Wales Court of Appeal, decision (2003) EWCA Civ 797, which states that Crown can modify an Order in Council (subordinate to statutory law) but the Crown cannot democratically alter statutory law, that is the sole responsibility of the Parliament concerned.
As the 2005 UK House of Lords decision (2005) UKHL 37 and European Court of Human Rights application 42184/05 reaffirms the EWHC and EWCA decisions, the ICPB appears to be appealing against itself, that is how it appears to me.
The DWP reiterated that pensioners know the rules when they decide to emigrate, we know the statutory rules, as we fought for them in W W 2. It appears the DWP forgot that little episode and only abide by the subordinate rules!

Yours sincerely
Frank Dunn.

©2009  Website by Simply Good Websites