Go to our dedicated page on this issue - click HERE

UPDATED: 8th, Nov, 2017.



As a daily growing number are increasingly aware, UnitedPeople for nearly two years now has been investigating the state introduction of JobPath - a possible illegal setup which has been forced on a nation of people against their will in many detailed recorded cases.

Over the that same period, UnitedPeople members have been continuously helping to clarify matters relating to the operation which has seen two private companies come in with Fine Gael/Labour permission and try massive profit off the backs of the unemployed (unbeknown to them) of Ireland.


In a court supplied statement, the above stated themselves that no legislation does exist that can force a person to sign such paperwork with either of the two companies. People that have stood up to them, having had their benefits cut off previously (illegally) by the state, had to have their benefits restored and any prior financial loss refunded then they were aware of the law and expressed their legal rights peacefully.

Last month on the 23rd of September, a judge was presented in the Dublin Highcourt - as part of an ongoing case regarding a judicial review - with a sworn legal statement on behalf of the Department of Social Protection. this statement, a legal admission by them said that they acknowledge they or their hired companies do not have the regulation ability to  cut anyone's money due to the above reason in bold type. Since that statement was made however, other lower status employees around the country, of the Department of Social Protection, Seetec and Turas Nua are still perpetuating a lie to 'invited' members of the public that they must sign on the dotted line of their PPP (Personal Progress Plan) in order to retain their benefits - when in fact they DO NOT! The state and private company lies continue.


The Latest Tactic.

UnitedPeople in the last three days alone, has heard of three cases reported to it consisting of the following...

In an effort to still convince others to sign themselves to a PPP (Personal Progress Plan - a formal legal contract), in their latest documentation that unemployed must agree to, Intreo have stated :

"I will work with the Department to agree my Personal Progress Plan" (See graphic below).

It's cleverly worded. It doesn't actually state they draw it up. Seetec or Turas Nua can and will draw it up - but what's the definition of "will work" with the department? Signing a private contract with a private company? You, of course, could agree to the PPP that will come from either of the two companies - but signing it, a contract, is another matter!

You can be quite willing to "engage" - quite willing to agree with the PPP - but also signing a private contract with a private company?  Is that what now constitutes working "with the department" and you are also agreeing to that too? It's very sneaky that Intreo are very unclear where exactly the PPP will come from.? Do they state where it will actually comes from? Read the full sentence again...

If Intreo, THEMSELVES, do draw up their own plan for you (Where's the terms and conditions off that PPP? Can you take it away to read it?) and there is no contractual conection to Seetec of Turas Nua, then there should be less of a problem - but Intreo do NOT state a PPP that will be shoved in front of you, will not come via them.

REMEMBER - They are saying you must sign with them, that you agree to a PPP - BEFORE - you have even seen any or the full details of the PPP yet... Or indeed, where it's going to be more accurately coming from! You can agree "to agree" - but private company contract sign it too? On that legal technical point, they are deliberate vague.

Sneaky clever worded eh? Most people will fall for the above. They won't kop that they are agreeing to a plan - before they even get to (a) see the plan and (b) where it later will actually come from!

The solution? You could "agree" to work with Intreo - you could "agree" to the future drawing up of a PPP - but you might write also on the form you must sign with them, that it must come from Intreo and (a) not have the same terms and conditions as any drawn up by any private company or (b) not undermine your basic legal rights. They will immediately say it won't - but if the same terms and conditions (see two images below) applies as the private companies, it sure as hell DOES!

NOTE ONE: Any standard agreement is usually draw up between at least two sides. An agreement is trashed out and signed to. Intreo are in this case, pre-dictating all the conditions of the entire agreement. Fair? Legal? Where is your input into the drawing up of conditions? They have already dictated your supposed suggested conditions, for you, to yourself - but you are not meant to kop this also - and they are not going to point out this crucial legal point either! More sneakiness, eh?

In reality: they will say that in order for you to claim your benefits, you have to agree to a future PPP (before you have even see it - before you read its inner rights affecting conditions - before you discover where it more accurately comes from). It's the latest way to get you stuck to a private contract with a private company!

NOTE TWO: In the case of the PPP or even the Intreo form that the below will be part of, they will not allow you to take away their conditions (to be further legal assessed) - as they know a true good solicitor or constitutional barrister would have serious undermining rights concerns and then point them out to you.

NOTE THREE: In the normal practise of negotiating any will be binding agreement, both sides usually sign that they "agree" or that they "ask" the other formal party to agree to stipulated conditions. In the case of the Intreo documentation pictured below, they state you "will" do (as they have already dictated) your supposed suggested conditions, as to their 100% drawn up agreement.

In other words, you will be told to sign an agreement that:

  • (a) Keeps a lot from you - but sign it anyway!
  • (b) You have had no negotiation input into in any way - but sign it anyway!


If you don't sign a form with the above as part of it, Intreo won't start or continue your benefits. They have you 'over a barrel'.  There will be no further terms and conditions to read - as any related to a PPP, will not be on it at that point - but good luck trying to leave with their form. They will claim it's their property - a possible valid claim - and if you try leaving with it, they might try and stop you via any security there. Fine! Photo it with your phone and tell them you will be back to sign it when its been further legal assessed! If they won't allow you to take a copy of it - as them what's so secret in it that they have to keep it between their building walls? You won't get a reasonable explanation answer.

Any alarm bells in your mind going off yet, at that point? There should be...



Let us be clear here - UnitedPeople is NOT suggesting that you don't abide by the terms and conditions you previous signed to commit to, when you submitted any prior claim for state benefits. We do suggest that you continue to abide by their three clear stipulated conditions (1. being fit for work - 2. be available for work and - 3. actively seeking work).

We do point out the following:

  1. If Intreo come up with their own PPP it should be (if they are decent, taking into account your current living conditions, your qualifications, your current health, your outstanding bills, your ability to travel and your right to maintain personal legal rights) designed therefore within a legal framework not only protecting you but enhancing your current lifestyle, not making it worse.
    As of yet, we still are waiting to hear of the existence of any Intreo office hiring a full/part-time employee what is professionally qualified to carry out such assessments and then applying a PPP as constructed for those on benefits. Up till now, all PPP's have come from private companies Seetec and Turas Nua. They continue to come from those companies. Is the PPP being 100% designed by Intreo staff (including all conditions) or by Seetec/Turas Nua operators? If so, what is their prior obtained qualifications to professionally assess you?
  2. If Intreo are pushing a PPP onto anyone that contractually connected them to any of the two private companies, as a condition to gaining state benefits or maintaining them, Intreo is in fact breaking the law. You cannot be forced by blackmail or state coercion into signing a private contract with a private company.
  3. Before you give any signature over, you are legal entitled to see all full terms and conditions of any PPP that you are being asked to sign (often in a hurry by state officials who always orally gloss over the full conditions). Have they presented them to you and allowed you (a) to take them away and assess them or (b) given you enough time without pressure, to study them on site?
  4. The Department of Social Protection (which Intreo also works under) on the 23rd of September 2017, along with Seetec, have Dublin highcourt stated by legal sworn statement supplied, that indeed a PPP with Seetec and Turas Nua (another private company pushing JobPath) is a private company legal contract.
  5. Therefore, if any PPP is presented by Intreo to citizens, coming via Seetec and Turas Nua, you are not obligated to sign that private contract. Ask is Seetec/Turas Nua conditions applicable to that contract? If so, where are they stated in print what they are? How can you legally sign something and that contract be fully valid if someone refuses to give you the full terms and conditions? When you are given (if you are rare lucky) enough time and further examine the Seetec/Turas Nua details of previous PPP's for signing, you should have been alarmed at the rights you are giving away against yourself - and that of your family also - see images below.  Their terms and conditions are still being forced on people via illegal financial threat. You are signing that:
    (a) If you do not abide by their insisting alone, you will be threatened with sanctions - and by signing, you are agreeing into more giving them that legal right.
    (b) Try looking for part-time work or other forms of education beyond the limited range, short time versions the two companies will only allow, you will be threatened with sanctions.
    (c) Try looking for work through other jobs-clubs, you will be threatened with sanctions.
    (d) Try continuing in some part-time work you already have, you will be threatened with sanctions. UP has many cases of this reported to it on a near daily basis. The reason why this is happening is because the two private companies are unable to claim at least four payments off the state as you are not in full time employment.
    If you are in a part-time job that better suits your living conditions, this doesn't 'wash' with them - as they cannot make further money out of you. They only get paid as you are employed full time for a year. Hence, it's in their best profit interest to force you out of a part-time position and force you to take a full time one. UP hears weekly reports of people  consistently forced out of part-time jobs.
    (e) If you do not do as 100% ordered by the private company, you will be threatened with sanctions.
    (f) If you do not agree to allowing Seetec/Turas Nua to be able contact you in all ways, you will be threatened with sanctions.
    By the way. if they need your permission in order for them to contact you by phone or email, how could they have legally done so previously? To do that previously under Data Protection Law, is akin to a private company 'cold-calling' or spamming - both illegal - but you're not supposed to notice this and they won't be telling you - nor will the Department of Social Protection or any FG/FF/Labour representative.
    (g) You give up your entire rights to privacy in your private life - and if you don't, you will be threatened with sanctions.
    (h) If you do not pass on - remember: to a private company - any information of any changes that occur with your legal spouse, partner or even children, in their private lives, you will be threatened with sanctions.
    (i) You award the state and the private companies the rights to not only have your personal data (your now legal recognised "asset") but also give them the right to process it and transfer it as they see fit. In the case of Seetec, transferring it out of Ireland to the UK where data protection law is far weaker - and out of jurisdiction of the Irish Data Commissioner. Deliberate tactic? You decide!
    Note also: if they hadn't got these rights previously - how then did the two private company legally obtain your data and then use it! You are not meant to notice that act of illegality either. Again, Seetec/Turas Nua won't be telling you - nor will the Department of Social Protection or any FG/FF/Labour representative. More deliberate silence and total coward ducking of the issue. If you don't capitulate to giving away your data rights to the private companies, you will be threatened with sanctions.
    (j) You are signing that you are allowing the private companies to gain further ability to sanction you if you do not abide by anything they dictate.
    ...But hang on... If they didn't have that right previously, how are they able to see that its done already - but yet again here too, you're not supposed to notice this and they won't be telling you - nor will the Department of Social Protection or any FG/FF/Labour representative. If you don't agree to allowing yourself to be punished, you will be threatened with sanctions! Go figure!
  6. Intreo like the Department of Social Protection, has already without telling any unemployed and without getting their signed agreement, changed the prior printed terms and conditions for claiming benefits (1. being fit for work 2. be available for work and 3. actively seeking work). They have subsequently inserted further additional condition's and claimed that you previously signed to abide by these too (even though these add-ons didn't exist at the time. They just added them on anyway!). That's what they espouse. Would this be actually legally valid as a contract under standard contract law? Highly questionable indeed - but it's a Leo Varadkar, Fine Gael fronted government. They seem to think they can do what they like  - including continuing to break many laws (while telling you to obey others) and they further get away with it. Fianna Fail and Labour here too are letting then get away with all this along with even more deliberate silence. They continue to play on state bully tactics and people's unawareness, to their best political advantage.

The Consequences Of Standing Up For Your (And Fellow Citizens) Legal Rights.

One thing that seriously 'throws' a rotten political party, any department willingly carrying out its illegal demands and private companies, is when private citizens actually have the braveness to stand up for their Irish and European legal constituted rights. It gets under their skin when citizens become lay litigants. some have to become this as far too many solicitors in the state are unwilling to take on the state. Why? In many cases, they are afraid to challenge a hand that is also feeding them.


In the letter the person writing to Greg references the Social Welfare Act of 2005, in order to justify an illegal financial cut. If anyone was to actually examine the actual act, the legal power to do what they are doing, is not actually there.

In the 2010 amended act there is a reference to "with good cause" in order to impose some sanctions on people for good reason.

Here's the kicker! The Department of Social Protection alone, have Dublin highcourt admitted that NOT signing a PPP is NOT within the grounds of "with good cause". Again, therefore the state is acting illegal again.  In other words, again due to pre-existing Irish and European contract protection law, a person cannot be forced to sign a private contract. Additionally, even if they were forded to sign under pressure tactics, this would deem a said contract invalid also. Additionally, if the signer was not allowed to examine at his own capable ability, the full terms and conditions of any contract, that contract could be deemed invalid also.

Here's another 'kicker' as they say! As "Seetec Ireland" alone, was given the state contract before it was legally registered and fully setup as a legal entity, any subsequent legal contracts they subsequently got peopel to sign by pressure tactics or not, are open to question of they too in lock, stock and barrel, are all also legal anyway!

Now we know that Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and labout are all aware to top levels of the above - but they are (a) deliberate remaining silent and (b) inactive too about the above. Why? Would it be as "Irish Water" set-up with them or came about by their prior actions, was also given state contracts before they too were fully legal?

In other words, if FF (for example) speak up and expose the current illegality, they might be exposing their own complicity in the previous eventual "Irish Water" outcome...

Here's a third kicker! As Leo Varadkar and Regina Doherty could be proven to be aware of the above - and still they allow it all to continue - they too are subsequently breaking - right now - some serious laws. Namely the Criminal Law Act 1997. It states:

Criminal Liability.
Where there is more than one person involved in a possible crime, all may possess an equal amount of guilt or varying degrees of guilt, each chargeable with in time, a result penalty.

(a) Principle Offender.
This is the principle person what commits the initial act along with their reason for doing it.

(b) Aider and abettor.
Under common law, this is the person who provides the principle (person, body or state) with rendered aid, assistance or encouragement at the time of the act being committed.

(c) Accessories.
Any person that aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be tried and punished as a principal offender.

As further acts of an indictable offence are being committed today - and they are doing nothing to see the matter addressed, instead by their knowing silence and inaction, allowing such acts to continue - they are therefore possible legally answerable for the breaking of Ireland's laws as any other crook stealing money illegally.

refusal unitedpeople

The letter on the left was sent out to one citizen as he continued to stand up for his basic rights. This man's name is Greg Doran (LINK).

Greg has an interesting - even shocking - tale to tell.

The state previously when he questioned something, concluded that his payments were assessed wrong and they subsequently enforced a cut on his money. it quickly grew to a financial loss of €800. Greg however was not going to take such odd antics lying down. he peacefully and legally questioned what they were up to.

Eventually they had to admit, probably very reluctantly, that they had done wrong and had to reimburse him the total amount they had wrongly stole from him.

Coincidence or act of underhand revenge, just two weeks later after they restarted his benefits and repaid what they owed to him, they then applied yet another cut for a complete other found reason. This time the non-signing of a private contract with a private company. As you read above, they and others DO NOT have the legal power to do this. There is no "ifs" or "buts" about this.

...But it gets better....

Back To Greg.

Returning back to Greg, because he continues to stand up for his rights and as part of that, expose wrongdoings (that even Dept' of Social Protection has state court admitted, is wrong), Greg posted a letter on Facebook that was give to him - in other words, becoming his property, that stated his current situation.

The result of Greg posting the above letter given to him, was not two Garda sent to his front door - no - it's reported that it was actually two detectives. Two detectives whom we might presume would have better things to do with their time? They were sent out to his front door by someone who wish to add pressure on Greg to capitulate.

Someone didn't like further people become aware of more of the states antics - so they requested more strong-arm stuff be tried!

They haven't succeeded. Greg Doran still continues to defend the laws of Ireland and his rights. Elected politicians however, continue to play 'duck and cover'. Their inaction silence is still deafening...

the Law UnitedPeople

In Conclusion.

The state and many characters within, from the usual underhand acting political parties, are continuing to try take advantage, quietly, bit by bit, the very citizens they are supposed to be looking out for - their employers - the people of Ireland. The constant undermining of rights in many ways is deeply worrying.

Even to those that might politicly oppose UnitedPeople, it should just be as worrying to them the way citizens rights are being treated. It might not be them today or tomorrow - but sooner or later, as the 'thin end of a wedge' is allowed to grow bigger, it could be - and if not them, their offspring instead! This issue is not about any one political party or even ideology direction, it's fundamentally about everyone's human rights.

We should not forget the words of Martin Niemöller (1892–1984):

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.