Labour activist under further malicious attacks

In May, the SKWAWKBOX reported an attack on the Labour campaigner ‘Rachael Swindon’ (@rachael_swindon), in which a malicious, false report was made against her resulting in the suspension of the benefits she and her family received as a result of her husband’s disability.

As well as caring for her husband, Rachael is also one of the most influential social media activists in the UK, producing some of the hardest-hitting political ‘memes’ to the serious discomfort of the Tories and the Labour right. It is believed that the malicious report was made by a political opponent.

The report was investigated and benefits were eventually reinstated.

Things started to look up when social housing was made available to the family, who moved in about eight weeks ago. But now Rachael reports that a further malicious report has been made, alleging that she received ‘earnings’ between Nov 2016 and Feb 2017 while claiming disability benefits, an allegation which she categorically denies but which has resulted not only in the suspension of benefits but a demand for repayment of £1,500. A similar allegation about her husband has resulted in the suspension of housing benefit, in spite of which the housing association is demanding payment.


Rachael told the SKWAWKBOX,

We’ve only been here a few weeks and now the housing association is demanding payment of rent even though they know our support has been suspended, including housing benefit.

The DWP is demanding payslips for the work ____ is supposed to have done since last November, but we can’t provide them because he absolutely has not been working – he has fibromyalgia and bowel problems and there’s no way he can work.

We’re at our wits’ end and terrified we’ll lose our home. This isn’t the only false accusation – I had social services on the phone accusing me of all sorts because of an anonymous complaint, we were cleared of that and then there was an anonymous complaint that we were burning things and creating a nuisance, but even the council’s letter said they hadn’t substantiated the complaints even though they were sending us a letter warning us to stop something we hadn’t done.

fire complaint
Swindon council’s warning letter, even though ‘we have not substantiated the complaint and write to you based on complaints from member(s) of the public only

If these complaints are politically motivated, they demonstrate that the right will sink to any depths in order to try to silence those that threaten the status quo.

‘Rachael Swindon’ can be followed on Twitter here and blogs on Blogspot here.


  1. tories only attack the people and beserch their name – they have no viable policies or desire to make britain more ‘reasonable to live in’- why isn’t the labour party supporting the people actively and challenging and opposing this rotten stuff??? the tories want you to kill yourself otherwise they will do it for you!

  2. The letter does not claim that the lady’s husband has been working. It refers to “your wife” allegedly working, so is presumably addressed to the husband.

  3. The article would also seem to breach the Impress COP, by mixing the (albeit inaccurate) facts with opinion by categorising the reports to the DWP as malicious when they may or may not have been.

    1. Shut up hindson, you sad, lonely, thoroughly despicable old get.

      Still on about the: ‘May or may not have been’ malicious reports?

      It was explained to you last time that the previous reports MUST have been malicious, else Rachael & her family wouldn’t have moved into their new home – because they’d be under a sanction if, after investigation, the reports were confirmed….But as long as your arse faces the ground, you’ll refuse to listen & learn.

      As I said last time, I’ll report you for all that child pornography you may/may not have on your computer.

      Malicious? Maybe – maybe not…

      1. Have you anything to say on the factual inaccuracy in the article, which claims that the DWP are saying that the lady’s husband has been working, when they’re saying no such thing?

        As to “malicious” it’s perfectly possible to make a report to the DWP in good faith if one suspects wrongdoing, if one’s overriding reason for making the report is to safeguard taxpayer money regardless of who one’s reporting.

        Not every prosecution resulting in an acquittal is malicious.

      2. As to “malicious” it’s perfectly possible to make a report to the DWP in good faith if one suspects wrongdoing, if one’s overriding reason for making the report is to safeguard taxpayer money regardless of who one’s reporting.

        Again with the ‘good faith’ bollocks. You used that last time, too….And you were routinely schooled about that as well.

        Evidently there’s a lot of ‘good faith’ when it comes to Rachael & her family – wouldn’t you agree? Not all concerning taxpayer money, neither.

        Just stop being so f***ing contrary and stop antagonising people you bitter old f***. All too easy to do what you do when you’re hiding behind a keyboard.

        Get down your local jobcentre or foodbank with that same attitude of yours – see how long you last before even the staff spark you clean out.

    2. Not all the information we have is in the article. It is beyond question malicious, but some information can’t be put into the public domain. We have a duty to establish accuracy of information, not to give you or anyone the full process by which we do so.

      1. If you say so it must be true! But It looks, smells and feels like conjecture. You’ll have my formal complaint by now.

  4. Rachael your contributions are brilliant and effective. Keep thinking of the thousands of people who value what you do and wish you well. We are many and we will win. Let us all know if we can help xxx

  5. What’d be ‘good’ news would be to hear that Rachael’s husband was one of the tens of thuosands of those who’ve had their ESA miscalculated, been underpaid as a result, and will have their benefit backdated from 2011 at the correct amount.

    Although the caveat is that knowing the snide regime of the toerags, they’ll class it as a windfall and subject it to tax, somehow.

    As I said in the other thread – Gawp, Dummkopf-Schmitt & the rest of them who’ve been at the DWP ought to be paying a £50 civil penalty for each & every one of those who’ve been had over.

    1. This is a test comment using a throw away e-mail address and pseudonym, as my posts don’t seem to be getting through.
      Graham Hindson

      My view would be that the back payment should attract interest, and would even go so far as to say that if the under payment could be definitively linked to the need for a short term, high interest loan, then that interest should also be refunded.

  6. This is a clear example of harassment of an individual because of their political beliefs and principals.I think since the accusations are of an alleged fraud Ms Swinton should apply for a court order instructing the DWP et al to reveal the source of the allegations in order to assess the provenance of the same. Quite clearly they are malicious and need to be addressed because of their intent to do harm. Quite clearly some cowardly individual or individuals have got it in for Ms Swinton. No prizes for guessing who they might be. I for one will be happy to donate £10 to the crowdfund should Ms Swinton wish to take legal action to clear her good name. Good luck if you need.

    1. You say that the allegations are clearly malicious. How can you possibly know that? You don’t know who’s made them, and even if you did you’d have to be telepathic to know their motivation.

      As an aside the letter appears to be addressed to “Mr Rachael”, as it refers allegedly not declaring his wife’s earnings, so if anyone’s being accused of fraud it must be him, not her.

      1. Dear Mr Kidson,AKA Tory Boy
        I fear that in your attempt to rubbish mine and the Toffees’s comments, you have been hoisted by your own Patard and worse still shown your true colours*. I will address the details of your argument as they occur.
        In the first instance, you are right I am not telepathic. I am just an averagely intelligent person who is able to read a document, judge its content and come to a conclusion as to its meaning. This I do by a system of parsing and analysis. If you’re not familiar with the term parsing look it up. Assuming you are not ‘telepathic’ how do you the allegations are not malicious?
        With regards to the letter being addressed to Mr R. This is neither here nor there since DSS claimants in these circumstances are assessed as a family unit*. On this occasion, I will forgive you for your ignorance.
        *However, I find your comments about reporting miscreants to the authorities aka the DWP very disturbing. Is this what you do in your spare time? For your future erudition, I would point out here there have been several times in modern history when miscreants and dissidents have been reported to the authorities. Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’sChina. No need to mention Mc Arthy’s USA. That was all a long time ago but I am sure Kim Jong Un would give you a job if you asked.
        You mention ‘taxpayer’. Who the f***k is the taxpayer? Oh I know Lord Ashcroft the bog creeper. We are all taxpayers, even you I guess.
        In the meantime, I am sure the party will reward you efforts if you do better next time. Tell EDS I put in a good word for you.
        Toddle Pip!

  7. I’m puzzled here because, although I joined Labour to vote for Corbyn, and I believe in Jeremy, I don’t think we can or should win by distorting things, that’s the Tory method. I contributed to Rachael’s fund back in May when Squawkbox revealed her plight but the letter here says ‘that your wife was working and had received earnings’ so that the argument that her husband can’t work because he is disabled isn’t relevant. I’m not disputing that the complaint might be malicious, but just that Squawkbox’s report is skewed. Can someone clear this up just in case I’m missing something? Thanks.

      1. Thanks for trying to clear this up, I don’t have an agenda here and (apart from 2003 to 2009) have been a Labour supporter all my life but the page on my PC with the letter still says ‘that your wife was working and had received earnings’ so what has been corrected? One of the reasons I like JC is because of his integrity and I’d like to think most of the left (not the right of the Labour Party, too much to ask) has integrity so I’m just asking for clarity. Thanks

      2. The image was left in place but the text was amended to fit. Previously it had been written for another image that was not uploaded.

  8. When were these “civil penalties” introduced?

    This is the reason I am opposed to UBI, in the current political and structural rent seeking climate, it is open to being ‘conditional’ and ‘civil penalties” on condition of arbitrary good/acceptable behaviour and used as punishment.

  9. Utter Bastards. But not surprising as me and my family have been personally attacked too with half successful attempts to make us completely in debt and homeless too. I hope Rachael and her family come through their ordeal triumphantly as soon as possible.
    It is now urgent that Jeremy becomes Prime Minister. Good luck, Rachael X


  11. Dear Mr Kiderson,
    It’s good to hear you are a taxpayer like the rest of us. I hope you are not a tax evader though but I have my suspicions so I reserve the right to report you should the need arise.
    I see you would be pleased to join Mays citizens army of informers.The DWP and thought crime corp would suit you best I think. I am sure you think that ‘The War On The Poor’ is a fine and honourable cause to fight for.
    However, as for reporting your suspicions (of your neighbour’s affairs and business I guess), I see a snag. In order for your allegations to be substantiated, you would need to provide evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, they would quite rightly be considered malicious. Since you are, as I, not ‘telepathic’ (that word again) how would you obtain such evidence?
    You might consider spying through your net curtains with a cheap pair of binoculars. However, I should warn you here that voyeurism is an indictable offence, especially where there are children involved. Punishable by up two years in prison I believe. Of course, your neighbours would be quite within their rights to report their suspicions of the crime, as I am sure you would agree being a fine upstanding citizen.
    I would not like to be your defence lawyer though and two years with the ‘nonces’ just for doing your duty for reporting enemies of the state. I hear the old lags don’t take kindly to those type of offenders.
    There are other options though, intercepting mail and communications for instance but again I think you will find these are both illegal. That just leaves listening to tittle-tattle and gossip in the corner shop which again I am sure would agree is by nature malicious.
    So my answer is no, best not report them even if you are telepathic because that would not be accepted in court. Good luck with the binoculars in the meantime.
    Yours in expectation,
    Paul Byrne

  12. They did EXACTLY the same sort of s*** to me about 14 years ago….I ended up losing my home and everything. Still homeless to this very day and refused to pay a penny in benefits since…..and had the nerve to fine me about two thousand pounds back in 2008 when I tried to take them to Court over it. WTF else can I do?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: