David Cameron sued by unemployed man over freedom of speech
An unemployed man is suing Prime Minister David Cameron for £1 million in a battle over freedom of speech.
Jobseeker Harvey Stone claims he was unlawfully prosecuted for sending the government an email protesting against their treatment of the unemployed.
The father of one, of Holten-le-Clay, Lincolnshire, says his struggle to find a job has been made infinitely harder after he sent a “protest email” to the government over George Osbourne‘s “Help to Work” scheme, and was charged with a criminal offence as a result.
Mr Stone, who is married with a 16-month old daughter, says he was charged with an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, after sending the email, protesting against the Chancellor’s controversial plans to make the unemployed perform unpaid labour.
The family man, who says the Tory leader has “allowed his government to discriminate against and criminalize the unemployed“, through the much-criticised policy, claims his human right to freedom of expression has been violated.
He has now launched a High Court bid for £1 million in damages, claiming his reputation and future chances of gaining employment are in tatters as a result of the furore.
In a writ lodged at London’s High Court, Mr Stone’s sets out his case, saying:
“Prime Minister David Cameron has allowed his government to pursue a course of action designed to discriminate against and criminalize the unemployed, breaching the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 4, the prohibition of slavery and forced labour.
“This prompted a protest email from myself, for which I was arrested and charged under the Malicious Communications Act 1988.”
Mr Stone claimed that the arrest and charge breached his human right to free speech, and caused loss and damage to himself and his struggling family.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. The negligent actions of David Cameron’s government could lead to a criminal record for myself making it hard to find a job,” he said.
Mr Stone is claiming £500,000 in lost future earnings and a further £500,000 for damage to his reputation, “and the stress his government has caused to myself and my family, as I try to support my wife and my 16-month old daughter.”
Emphasizing the gulf in status between himself and the Prime Minister, Mr Stone also adds in the writ: “I have no money…I am unemployed, do not own property or anything of financial value and have to support my wife and daughter on benefits.”
He concludes: “The issues raised are of general public importance. Only too often the litigant in person is regarded as a problem for judges and for the court system, rather than the person for whom the civil justice system exists.”
Mr Cameron’s lawyers have acknowledged receipt of the claim against him but his defence to the action was not available from the court. Mr Stone’s case has yet to be tested in evidence before a judge.
Source – Grimsby Telegraph, 11 July 2014
UNEMPLOYED IN TYNE & WEAR 
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
I’m not sure how strong Mr Stone’s case actually is without seeing further evidence. From what is described in the article, it seems likely that Mr Stone, in his anger and frustration, made what could be construed as a series of threats in his email. He probably told Cameron precisely what he’d like to do to him. In his defence, there is a difference between a strongly worded opinion expressing utter contempt of someone, expressed as a desire to threaten or endanger their life, and a serious threat to do so. For example, if someone at the Job Centre says they’d like to kill Cameron, but shows no sign of any real desire actually to perform the murder, then it can be safely assumed that they have not actually threatened Cameron’s life. They’ve merely expressed a very strong opinion of Cameron’s character. If, however, they are then seen with a gun getting into a car with a map showing the best route to Chipping Norton, then it’s fairly obvious that it was a serious threat. It also strikes me that the man has really fallen foul of legislation designed to stop the type of vilely abusive emails sent by trolls, like the cyberbullying that has caused some young people to take their own lives. In which case, there really does need to be clarification between what counts as free speech, and what is simply offensive attempts to intimidate.
Reblogged this on Vox Political.
Reblogged this on stewilko's Blog and commented:
Impressive, good luck to him
Can we see a copy of said email?
Reblogged this on delboydave and commented:
This is the only course of action left open to anyone who has been let down and marginalised by ‘the system’
Reblogged this on Maxwell's Mostly Irrelevant Musings.
Reblogged this on Benefit tales.
Very, very brave. Is he going to crowd fund his legal costs as would like to help. Wish him all the luck in the world. I hope many, many more do the same. Will watch with interest. Change is coming.
Well done!
x
The Welfare Reform Act, 2009 (Labour) as implemented by IDS does not breach the HRA nor article 4 ECHR. That is already decided case law. If the charge under MCA 2008 was brought wrongfully no case lies against the Prime Minister, but against the authority who brought the charge. Even an acquittal is not proof of the case being brought wrongfully. If Mr Stone was convicted then the case was brought lawfully and there can be no grounds to sue.
This case is destined to fail. No case lies against the Prime Minister.