When I published this site in June 2016, I wanted to inform people how easy it is for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to swindle benefit recipients out of their benefits and in many cases, criminalise them too.
I have now discovered what seems incredible: for at least the last 16 years, officials of the DWP have been able to commit any crime they want against those receiving state benefits, primarily to deny them their benefits, with complete impunity. This is because chief constables have ordered every one of their officers to violate their oath of office, known as the 'oath of attestation', by refusing to even record such crimes. This discrimination is completely illegal under EU and British law. The pathetic excuse the police give for this illegal discrimination is that "the DWP is a statutory body with its own complaints procedure."
The so-called, Independent Police Complaints Commission, colludes with the police by parroting the same 'statutory body' mantra to dismiss complaints and appeals.
During those 16 years, approximately 6.5 million benefit recipients have been sanctioned.
From my own research, I have no doubt whatsoever, that the overwhelming majority of those sanctioned have been defrauded of their benefits, with the number of deaths as a result, since 2,000, in the region of 200,000 (extrapolating the 10,600 figure for 2011).
The Nazi regime did something similar to rid Germany of "useless eaters" and the regime here just uses another method.
Phil Grace, 3rd February, 2017
"There is a...elite in politics, in the police, in the legal system, in the media too that colludes together to exercise power over ordinary people". Shadow Home Secretary, Andy Burnham, Question Time 28.04.2016
At this site I tell my story and provide evidence which I believe proves there is collusion between the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), the police, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and HM Courts and Tribunals Service to allow DWP fraud investigators and their accomplices to frame those in receipt of state benefits for fraud with complete impunity. This is treason.
Each year there are over 200,000 mentally impaired people receiving state benefits. Each year over 600,000 people receiving benefits are sanctioned. Never has a single Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) employee even been prosecuted for misconduct against a benefit recipient. As far as I am aware every chief constable enforces an edict ordering every police officer under his or her command to breach their own oath of attestation and refuse to record and investigate reports of crimes committed against those receiving benefits by employees of the DWP. All those involved in the framing of benefit recipients for fraud and those who conspire with these criminals to allow it to go on are in my mind, clearly guilty of committing the most shameful crime. Whether they are a clerk, a fraud investigator, a police officer, a chief constable, a judge, an MP or the Prime Minister they should all be charged with and prosecuted for an array of crimes including treason.
My name is Phil Grace, an IT professional who almost died of meningitis in the Spring of 2011. On 31st May 2011, I claimed by telephone for ESA sickness benefit. On 8th June 2011, I received a phone call telling me that I had paid enough National Insurance contributions, was to receive ESA at £67.50 per week and asked to send my doctor's sick note.
What then happened to me has undoubtedly happened to thousands of other benefit recipients over the years with the softest targets being the mentally impaired such as I was when the DWP framed me for benefit fraud.
To frame a benefit recipient who is receiving a contribution-based (CB) benefit is basically impossible. As long as you are available for work and not working on the side, well, they can't touch you for it. However, if you are receiving an income-related (IR) benefit then any income other than the benefit received by the main benefit recipient or their spouse or partner must be declared to the DWP or you will be accused of fraud.
So, what could be simpler than to covertly switch the award from contribution-based to means-tested if the CB benefit recipient has a spouse or partner. Here is the proof that this happened to me and unlike the DWP, Merseyside Police and the Labour MP, Maria Eagle, the computer audit trail which I obtained in 2015, doesn't lie.
Page 62 of the high level audit trail of the LMS database for benefits, known as the Data Protection Print Out (see below), shows that I made my claim on 31st May 2011 and was recorded as Event Claim Number 004, Event 006. This was by Operator ID 85257508 and would have been Tanya who took my telephone claim. Page 63 shows that I was awarded ESA and notified by BA on 8th June 2011. This is when I received a phone call telling me I had paid enough NI for ESA, would be awarded at the rate of £67.50 per week and was asked to send my doctor's sick note.
The next entry is confirmation of a crime that if committed by a police officer would result in a considerable prison sentence of several years. It shows Event 7 on 10th June 2011 as a Change in Circumstances and a Change to Other Income. The Operator ID is '00000000' - eight zeroes, which of course is not a valid Operator ID. The only change on the 10 June was the illegal change of my ESA award from contribution-based (CB) to income-related (IR). This was almost certainly done by Edward Whiteside, the senior fraud investigator based at the Toxteth Job Centre in Liverpool. Whoever it was though , had been given my NI number from an accomplice and used it to interrogate the database of the Inland Revenue - HM Revenue & Customs. This is where the criminal found my wife's maiden name and my daughter's name and this is the modus operandi for the set-up. I married my wife abroad and she came to the UK as Mrs Brenda Grace in June 2008. These names were added to the award then the criminal made up answers to a bunch of questions about my financial circumstances. Finally the status was changed from CB to IR.
The criminals didn't have to wait long for me to breach the rules applying to this means-tested version of ESA as when the change was made my wife was working and I had just received my first payment of an income protection policy. I was framed on both accounts.
Something isn't right
A few months later my wife received a phone call from the DWP asking if she was working and she informed them she was. We were sent a form to re-apply for ESA which is when I saw there was an alternative income-based award. This worried me so I checked my bank account and saw that my ESA payments had increased 6 weeks after my claim but hadn't noticed as I was receiving a lot more in income protection payments. I called the DWP and asked if I was receiving contribution-based ESA and he said no, I was receiving income-based. I asked why and he said because my partner was on the award. I thought "partner? what the hell is he on about?". I asked him what name he had and he said my wife under her maiden name. Well, I hit the roof, asking him "where the hell had my wife's maiden name come from" and told him some idiot had added her without my requesting it. He was full of apologies and told me if the DWP had made a mistake, I shouldn't have to repay the overpayment. By the time I was interviewed for fraud I remembered that I removed Brenda but had forgotten they had the wrong name due to my illness. Unfortunately, it was not to be a decent chap like the operator who was to decide on whether I was responsible for the overpayment but the fraud investigator Edward Whiteside, a psychopath with the morals of a rat and the scruples of a hitman.
An extraordinary set of circumstances
Being unaware there is an income-based version, I tell Tanya who took my claim that I am married to Mrs Brenda Grace and that she is working, thus guaranteeing I am awarded contribution-based ESA which the audit trail proves that I was.
Normally, the degenerate scum who frame victims, correctly assume that the victim claimed for themselves and were thus awarded contribution-based ESA. In my case however, they were unaware that I had included my wife as I thought I had to because I was married.
In my interview with Whiteside he frames me over the usual ploy telling me I failed to tell the DWP when I made my claim that Brenda was working. Not only did this sewer rat not know that I told Tanya that Brenda was working but I told her I was married to Brenda Grace.
It was this extraordinary set of circumstances that caught these vermin out: I included my wife in my claim when she was working; the HMR&C database had Brenda's maiden name; I recovered enough to have the wherewithal to conduct my own investigation and discover not only the proof that I had been framed but the DWP's modus operandi for the set-up.
The only other source where Whiteside could have found my wife's name was the Council Tax database but she was there as Mrs Brenda Grace. By relying on the HMR&C database he could also find more information about children, tax credits etc to make his fabricated award look more convincing.
see the documents 'The DWP's monumental screw up' and 'Non-existent Miss K found from HMR&C'
Audit Page 63
Confirms I was awarded contribution-based ESA on 8th June 2011 and changed to income-related on 10th June 2011 by DWP employee with invalid ID of 00000000.
The DWP's monumental screw up
Income-based section includes the non-existent Miss Brenda K. It might as well have been 'Mickey Mouse' for all the difference it has made in me pointing this out.