Monday, December 31, 2012

Who's legally liable for wellbeing of claimants found fit for work?

Parliamentary Question | who’s legally liable for wellbeing of claimants found fit for work? | 19 December 2012


Well, apparently, no one!

The Countess of Mar tabled a written question that asked the Government: “What person or organisation is legally liable for the wellbeing of benefits claimants who are found to be fit for work under the work capability assessment and who are then made to work?”

In his written reply on 19 December 2012, the Minister for Welfare Reform at the Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) replied:

The purpose of the work capability assessment (WCA) is to assist DWP decision-makers in assessing eligibility for benefit, or levels of benefit. The WCA is not a medical diagnosis and the decision affects benefit only; it does not oblige anyone to work.
Whilst the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is legally responsible for all benefit decisions made by officials of the department on his behalf, there is no legal responsibility held by the Secretary of State for the well-being of benefit claimants.
Therefore, neither DWP nor WCA healthcare professionals are liable for any adverse consequence suffered by a claimant following a decision that the claimant is fit for work or for work-related activity.
Source

Expose of Govt. Work Programme Failure


Jobcentre: Fobbing people off
Letter from David Dennis:

My name is David Dennis and I would like to tell you about a book I have just published and why I published it.

I finished school and for many reasons couldn’t go to university. I wanted to get a job. I applied and applied and in the end I had to sign onto the “dole”. I am not work shy and all I asked for was the support to get myself into paid employment. Instead of some effective support to get into work, I was sent to the Work Programme.

The Work Programme is one of those drains on the taxpayer that is much greater than all the layabouts combined. The whole idea is for private companies to be paid as soon as they complete a series of tests and skills sessions with their allotted students. The students can then apply for jobs with fuller CV’s. In theory, the whole thing sounds wonderful doesn’t it? In reality? The whole thing is a shambles and it needs to be reformed.

For example, let me give you some of the problems as I experienced them:

1) The classes are not put together with a view to the skills of those on the programme, regardless of what the government says. The architect with twenty years experience and the recent school leaver both find themselves in the same basic maths class, “learning” sums.

2) There is a high turnover of staff. In the few months I was on the programme, my tutors and advisors changed endlessly. There was no continuity and the calibre of the teaching staff was appalling. To my knowledge, none had a teaching background and many were completely unprofessional.

3) Work Placements are set up to give people “essential” experience for their CV’s. The placement I had was with one of the country’s “leading” gardening companies, and I found myself doing unskilled manual labor, despite the fact I have 13 GCSEs and 3 ‘A’ Levels with high marks. To add insult to injury (no pun intended), I didn’t receive mandatory protective gear, even after numerous requests. This was a “Workfare” placement. When I complained to the Jobcentre, I was fobbed off.

4) Sanctions are used to discriminate against the unemployed and used to bully them.

5) Ex-prisoners attend the Work Programme skills sessions along with school leavers. I find this to be not only socially irresponsible, but again indicates everyone gets lumped in together without regard to personal experience or qualifications. I was approached by an ex-prisoner with an offer to get into less-than-legal dealings. Had I been desperate or more vulnerable, I could have easily fallen into a deep trap.

6) I was told by my advisor that qualifications gained in school (‘A’ Levels, etc.) were irrelevant and I should not put them on my CV.

The list goes on and on. Finally, I left, signed off and wrote my book.

A few days ago, political commentator Mike Sivier of Vox Political wrote an article about the book. Please have a read here:

I think this is a story that needs a bigger audience. Perhaps then there will be some change. People will be supported to find work instead of castigated. I think there will always be layabouts– but I also believe the majority of people being thrown into these programs want work and would love jobs. If only someone would make the world aware of their struggle then they might have a chance at getting what they want for a change.

Regards,

David Dennis

Related:
David contacted us prior to us releasing his letter to let us know that he had been interviewed by Politics UK.  You can read that interview here.

Source

Paralympic golden girl Sophie Christiansen attacks Tory disability benefit cuts


 
Champ: Rider Sophie with gold
Champ: Rider Sophie with gold


Equestrian Sophie, 25, insists disabled people need more government support, not less.

Outraged Paralympic heroine Sophie Christiansen says the heartless Tory attack on disability benefits is a massive injustice.


In his New Year message yesterday David Cameron defended his plans to drive people off sickness payments, denying that it is cruel to make people get a job.

One million people who receive Disability Living Allowance will have the payments slashed or axed under proposals set out to MPs before their Christmas break.

Cerebral palsy sufferer Sophie, who had the nation in awe as she picked up three golds at the 2012 Games, said the Paralympics has changed views about disabled people but life is still tough for the majority of them.

She added that DLA covers some of the extra costs that the disabled face such as for transport. Campaigners say the cash helps thousands to hold down a job.

Sophie, who received an OBE in the New Year Honours, told the Mirror: “It is hard to get out and get a job. I think the Government is making a big mistake by cutting Disabled Living Allowance because disabled people need that bit of extra support.

“The Government is going about this in the wrong way. Every disabled person is different so they need more one-to-one support.

“And I think that would help them get off benefits and into society to help benefit the whole country.”

Fellow Paralympic rider Lee Pearson launched a blistering attack yesterday on the honours system, saying it is biased against disabled sportsmen and women.

Able-bodied stars such as cyclist Bradley Wiggins and sailor Ben Ainslie were knighted but gutted Lee, 38, missed out on the honour despite collecting his 10th Paralympic gold at London 2012.

The ParalympicsGB ace, who received an MBE in 2001 and a CBE in 2009, fumed: “It’s the discrepancy that p***es me off.”

Source

MP blasts year-long wait to sort out benefits for disabled people

AN MP has raised "deep concern" over the time it takes to sort out appeals for benefit claims by disabled people.

When people challenge decisions to stop their incapacity benefit after an assessment, it now takes 57 weeks – more than a year – for an appeal to be heard. Yet a third of those who appeal have their benefits reinstated.

Nottingham North MP Graham Allen has now hit out at the length of time it takes, after raising the matter in Parliament.

He has helped Susan Goldsmith, 52, of Cinderhill Walk, Bulwell, have her case looked at again, but even with his intervention the process still took 54 weeks.

She was assessed on August 17, 2011, and heard in October that her incapacity benefit was being stopped. She immediately appealed and the decision was finally overturned on December 6.

"I basically lost over £100 a week," said Ms Goldsmith, who suffers from arthritis and can only walk with a stick.

"It's ridiculous that it takes so long. I was living on the breadline. I had just over £60 a week of employment and support allowance to live on, and still am until all the paperwork goes through.

"It's been incredibly difficult and it's caused me a lot of stress and all for me to be in and out of the appeal in two minutes."

Meanwhile Edgar Lang has already been waiting 26 weeks to have his incapacity benefit case looked at again after he lodged an appeal on July 2.

It is estimated his appeal won't be heard until August 2013.

The 37-year-old, of Whiston Close, Bestwood, was diagnosed with depression and anxiety last year after a series of personal problems, including the breakdown of a nine-year relationship and the death of his father.

He had previously worked as a gardener and is now having treatment in the hope he will work again in the future.

His 81-year-old disabled mother is feeding him when he can't afford his own meals.

"She does it because she's my mum but I hate having to put her out," said Mr Lang. "I was diagnosed with depression and it's just a culmination of problems and as a result I feel very anxious when I go out. Even just getting on a bus is a huge thing. I want to go out and work again but until I'm all right mentally I just can't.

"My electricity will be turned off soon, I can't afford to pay for gas and I can't afford meals. I'm finding it very difficult and don't know how I'm going to cope until August."

Graham Allen said: "I wrote to (work and pensions minister) Chris Grayling expressing my deep concern. He responded on December 5 to tell me that average waits were down to 33.1 weeks over the summer. However, two days later HM Courts and Tribunals service told me in a letter that waits were back up to 57 weeks. This wait is sadly typical of those told to me by constituents.

"These are all individual people who are being forced to wait for their money, so many unjustifiably so. They can't not eat or delay payment of bills for 57 weeks."

Source

Iain Duncan Smith: Monster of the Year 2012 [reblog]

Iain Duncan Smith: I'm not fond of vulgarity, but this man makes me want to swear. Frequently, fulsomely, and offensively. 

Some people just don’t know when to keep their mouths shut.

It seems Iain Duncan Smith, the creature whose Department for Work and Pensions launched an ethnic cleansing programme (in all but name) against the sick and disabled in 2011 and 2012, has now turned his baleful glare on the working poor.

Tax credits – the system devised by the last Labour government to try to relieve poverty for people who work but receive low payment – has created “a sorry story of dependency, wasted taxpayers’ money and fraud”, according to the Immoral Delusional Sadist.

Let’s remember that this is the man who is using recorded fraud of 0.4 per cent, among sickness and disability claimants, to force at least 20 per cent of them off benefits altogether. His understanding of the extent of fraud is, well, flawed.

Let’s also remember that his planned replacement for tax credits – the Universal Credit – is already far over budget and still far from ready, despite pilot projects being scheduled to start in April. Its expected national roll-out in October may be put back to 2014. This man knows how to waste taxpayers’ money with the best of them!

As for tax credits creating dependency – this is the only part of his argument that could possibly be justifiable, and even then it is only because of government laxness regarding pay. If the national minimum wage had risen in line with company bosses’ average pay, it would currently stand at more than £18 per hour – three times its actual current level. That should explain everything you need to know about why low-paid workers may be dependent on tax credits to survive.

Tax credits – and other state top-ups for the working poor, like housing benefit and the soon-to-disappear Council Tax benefit – are only paid in high amounts because they subsidise employers who refuse to pay a living wage. If the private sector paid working people what they are worth, the benefits bill would drop like a stone.

The Insidious Dole Snatcher is currently leading an overhaul of the welfare system that will see a number of benefits replaced by a new universal credit that is designed, he says, “to make work pay at each and every hour”. He keeps saying this. I don’t understand why. Cutting benefits to less than what people are paid at work won’t “make work pay” – it’ll throw more and more people into poverty, debt and destitution.

But this is a creature who is determined to do his worst – actually refusing to be moved from Work and Pensions in David Cameron’s autumn reshuffle in order to continue inflicting his wrath on the defenceless poor.

The latest attack on the unemployed is the Universal Jobmatch computer system. Jobseekers are coerced into signing up (they don’t have to) and into ticking a box which allows Job Centre Plus staff to view their activities and pass their personal details on to possible employers (again, this is not a legal requirement). Advertisers on the site have, so far, included identity thieves and pimps.

Obviously, if you don’t have a computer – and many claimants don’t because, in case you’ve missed it, they’re poor – this system is impossible to use.

That’s not good enough for the Irrational Debt Starter. Under a headline that stated “Log on or stop signing on”, he told Metro: “I’m a job adviser and I’ve got someone who doesn’t want to do this. I will haul them in a lot. Instead of them going in every two weeks, these job advisers can bring them in every day if they want, if they think they are not getting out of bed in the morning.”

If the adviser does not believe the claimant is looking for work, their benefits will be withdrawn, he added.
In other words, not owning a computer is not, in this lunatic’s world, a good enough reason not to use a computerised jobsearch system.

I wasn’t going to do an ‘end-of-year awards’ feature but it is for the above reasons that Mr Smith takes the biscuit – ahead of other heavyweight contenders like Andrew Lansley (ruined the English NHS), George Osborne (expenses cheat, continuing to ruin the national economy), Maria Miller (expenses cheat, threw disabled people out of work by closing Remploy factories), Michael Gove (ruining our education system), Jeremy Hunt (too close to certain media barons) and of course David Cameron (living embodiment of dishonest with an embarrassing combover to boot) – to take the title.

Smith – YOU are Vox Political’s Monster of the Year!

Of course, in Britain we have a long tradition – look at Beowulf and Grendel, or St George and the Dragon – of killing monsters

Source

The 12 Biggest Coalition Cockups of 2012 [Pride's Purge]

So many to choose from but these are my top 12.

If you think I’ve missed any – feel free to let me know in the comments.

1) Emma Harrison from A4e blamed taxpayers for bullying her into paying herself a dividend of £8.6m from taxpayers’ money despite her firm’s abysmal record for the government’s Work Programme:

2) The coalition government decided to subsidise massive corporations like McDonald’s and Tesco with taxpayers’ money by allowing them to use unemployed people as slave labour:

3) The coalition government finalised its plans for the destruction of the NHS:

4) There were crisis in supplies of fuel and pasties:

5) The coalition managed to completely lose the trust of the police:

6) The coalition has overseen a massive rise in homelessness this year ( set to get even worse next year):

7) Cameron and Tory ministers in particular got caught out being led hand in glove by Murdoch and his dodgy cronies:

8) Osborne seriously suggested taxing both pasties and grannies and he might not even have been joking:

9) The coalition failed to sack George Osborne as chancellor:

10) G4S caused a security shambles at the Olympics and were rewarded for their incompetence by being made one of the government’s preferred bidders for privatisation of police and other services:

11) Government ministers brought Britain’s criminal justice system to a halt after they were hoodwinked into handing over a £300 million contract for court and police interpreting to a dodgy Delboy character:

12) A ‘mix-up’ by government ministers over dates means the UK coast will be left inadequately guarded:

Guardian: We need a coalition of resistance against local council cuts

As the new year dawns, councillors around the country will start drawing up budgets for 2013-14. Sharp and continuous reductions in government grants totalling 30% will result in severe cuts to balance the books. By law, they have to do this. Town halls can’t run deficit budgets, unlike the government.

This is the point at which Labour councils should be saying no, in a loud and clear voice, with support from their national leadership. We won’t make your cuts. We will not pass on the burden of the calamitous economic and financial crisis of capitalism that we did not create. We will defend our communities.

As matters stand, however, Birmingham, Manchester, Southampton and Labour councils in other towns and cities are preparing to announce thousands of redundancies and the elimination of key services. Virtually every section of the community will be affected.

As the Observer reported today, the leaders of Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield warned this weekend: “The unfairness of the government’s cuts is in danger of creating a deeply divided nation. We urge them to stop what they are doing now and listen to our warnings before the forces of social unrest start to smoulder.”

Yet, despite their dire forecast, the leaders of these and other Labour councils intend to make the budget cuts as demanded by the government. In my view, this is absolutely indefensible.

The hollow argument used to justify implementing the cuts is one that’s been around since I was leader of Lambeth council during its momentous struggle with the Thatcher government. Neil Kinnock, then Labour’s leader, told councillors that they should abandon defiance that might be considered illegal and instead maintain a “dented shield”.

Better to have a Labour council administering cuts in a “caring” way than the Tories, went the argument. In any case, resisting central government might encourage the Tories to do the same if Labour were in office. I heard the same tune again recently when Steve Reed said councillors were finding “practical ways to limit the pain”. For his loyalty, Reed was rewarded with the safe seat of Croydon North, and left his post as Lambeth council leader.

Back in the 1980s, David Blunkett (Sheffield), Margaret Hodge (Islington) and Graham Stringer (Manchester) initially took stands against rate-capping and budget cuts. One by one, they were persuaded by Kinnock to drop their opposition. All subsequently became MPs.

Ed Miliband’s pseudo-Tory “One Nation” politics does not allow for meaningful resistance to coalition austerity policies. It’s not difficult to fathom why. As many are aware, New Labour prepared the ground for many of the coalition policies through the expansion of PFI, contracting out, academies, tuition fees and other market-orientated measures.

Ed Balls and Gordon Brown between them set the bankers free to run riot with other people’s money. Now local government workers and service users are being made the scapegoats for a crisis that New Labour had a political hand in making. Pensions have already been reduced and wages frozen – with the backing of Labour’s front bench.

The biggest coalition in recent times is emerging against this government’s policies. Families with children at nurseries and schools, single parents, the disabled, carers, pensioners, students, redundant workers, part-time workers, people struggling to make ends meet, those whose homes have been repossessed, those on ever longer waiting lists and a million young people unemployed – all dependent at some point on local authority services which are now being snatched away.

This coalition is the basis for a co-ordinated campaign of resistance to council cuts and would provide the platform for exploding the myth, repeated as gospel truth by all the major parties since 1979 that there is no alternative. Public sector trade unions should take the initiative and call local assemblies of community groups, anti-cuts campaigns and other activists. These assemblies could draw up, or even commission, work on policy alternatives to an unsustainable, divisive capitalism that promotes inequality.

Let’s draw on the experiences of Occupy internationally, UK Uncut and the assemblies’ movement that has swept Spain. Why not mobilise communities to keep open services earmarked for closure, even if on a temporary volunteer basis like at Friern Barnet library?

In the 1980s, Labour councils like my own did organise a fightback. A price was paid, councillors were surcharged and forced from office. But resistance, far from being futile, mobilised communities. We won additional funds so that budgets could be set without cuts. Labour councillors today have the same choice – they can either lead a struggle against a vicious government or stand aside for those who will.

As the new year dawns, councillors around the country will start drawing up budgets for 2013-14. Sharp and continuous reductions in government grants totalling 30% will result in severe cuts to balance the books. By law, they have to do this. Town halls can’t run deficit budgets, unlike the government.

This is the point at which Labour councils should be saying no, in a loud and clear voice, with support from their national leadership. We won’t make your cuts. We will not pass on the burden of the calamitous economic and financial crisis of capitalism that we did not create. We will defend our communities.

As matters stand, however, Birmingham, Manchester, Southampton and Labour councils in other towns and cities are preparing to announce thousands of redundancies and the elimination of key services. Virtually every section of the community will be affected.

As the Observer reported today, the leaders of Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield warned this weekend: “The unfairness of the government’s cuts is in danger of creating a deeply divided nation. We urge them to stop what they are doing now and listen to our warnings before the forces of social unrest start to smoulder.”

Yet, despite their dire forecast, the leaders of these and other Labour councils intend to make the budget cuts as demanded by the government. In my view, this is absolutely indefensible.

The hollow argument used to justify implementing the cuts is one that’s been around since I was leader of Lambeth council during its momentous struggle with the Thatcher government. Neil Kinnock, then Labour’s leader, told councillors that they should abandon defiance that might be considered illegal and instead maintain a “dented shield”.

Better to have a Labour council administering cuts in a “caring” way than the Tories, went the argument. In any case, resisting central government might encourage the Tories to do the same if Labour were in office. I heard the same tune again recently when Steve Reed said councillors were finding “practical ways to limit the pain”. For his loyalty, Reed was rewarded with the safe seat of Croydon North, and left his post as Lambeth council leader.

Back in the 1980s, David Blunkett (Sheffield), Margaret Hodge (Islington) and Graham Stringer (Manchester) initially took stands against rate-capping and budget cuts. One by one, they were persuaded by Kinnock to drop their opposition. All subsequently became MPs.

Ed Miliband’s pseudo-Tory “One Nation” politics does not allow for meaningful resistance to coalition austerity policies. It’s not difficult to fathom why. As many are aware, New Labour prepared the ground for many of the coalition policies through the expansion of PFI, contracting out, academies, tuition fees and other market-orientated measures.

Ed Balls and Gordon Brown between them set the bankers free to run riot with other people’s money. Now local government workers and service users are being made the scapegoats for a crisis that New Labour had a political hand in making. Pensions have already been reduced and wages frozen – with the backing of Labour’s front bench.

The biggest coalition in recent times is emerging against this government’s policies. Families with children at nurseries and schools, single parents, the disabled, carers, pensioners, students, redundant workers, part-time workers, people struggling to make ends meet, those whose homes have been repossessed, those on ever longer waiting lists and a million young people unemployed – all dependent at some point on local authority services which are now being snatched away.

This coalition is the basis for a co-ordinated campaign of resistance to council cuts and would provide the platform for exploding the myth, repeated as gospel truth by all the major parties since 1979 that there is no alternative. Public sector trade unions should take the initiative and call local assemblies of community groups, anti-cuts campaigns and other activists. These assemblies could draw up, or even commission, work on policy alternatives to an unsustainable, divisive capitalism that promotes inequality.

Let’s draw on the experiences of Occupy internationally, UK Uncut and the assemblies’ movement that has swept Spain. Why not mobilise communities to keep open services earmarked for closure, even if on a temporary volunteer basis like at Friern Barnet library?

In the 1980s, Labour councils like my own did organise a fightback. A price was paid, councillors were surcharged and forced from office. But resistance, far from being futile, mobilised communities. We won additional funds so that budgets could be set without cuts. Labour councillors today have the same choice – they can either lead a struggle against a vicious government or stand aside for those who will.

David Dennis - Disregarded? Not anymore! [reblogged]


David Dennis, the author of Disregarded: The True Story of the Failure of the UK’s Work Programme, seems to have a hit on his hands. The book has attracted considerable interest, following my article earlier this month. It is therefore with pleasure that I am publishing the following interview with him, conducted by writer Alex Laybourne.

After reading the new bestseller “Disregarded: The True Story of the Failure of the UK’s Work Programme”, I knew I had to interview expose genius David Dennis. Not only did the book hit a chord with me, it has also hit a chord with readers and is currently flying high in the Amazon.co.uk chart. David is a curious guy, he doesn’t like to show his face. I asked him for a photo to include with this interview. He declined to share one and said he is choosing to remain anonymous. I asked him why, and thus our conversation began.

Q) So, tell me, why don’t you want your face out there? Your name will be on everyone’s lips soon. This book is hot! Don’t you want to be famous?

A) I’m not concerned about being famous, Alex. This book was written for the millions out there who are suffering and unemployed. Millions of faces, men and women, all different. Just one face can’t represent everyone or take credit for a small part in trying to improve things.

Q) David, how does it feel, now that you’ve got a hit on your hands to be away from the “Work Programme”.

A) Well, Alex, I guess it’s not exactly apt to say that I am away from it. It still haunts me and it makes me feel sick when I think of all those other people having to go and slave away day after day for the sake of a few quid.

Q) By “a few quid”, you really mean millions that are heading into the pockets of private companies – companies that could well afford to hire and pay employees to work for them.

A) Exactly– private companies are milking our taxpayers of money and our unemployed of their dignity to make vast profits. It’s disgusting to say the least and illegal to say the most.

Q) Illegal? Didn’t a court say it was legal?

A) A court might have said it was legal, but I think the definition of slavery fits like a glove. To work for your ‘benefit’ is to work for something like £71 a week. That isn’t a wage anyone would ‘choose’ to work for. Now, if the companies were happy to add in the rest to make it up to a living wage, that might be a fair deal people would agree with. There’s got to be some leeway given. Somebody has got to give and the unemployed have given too much as it is. It’s the private companies’ turn to put some money into the coffers if they want the benefit of workers.

Q) You believe those on benefits should get them for nothing then?

A) Of course not. I believe there should be a programme where people learn skills and get experience the fair way. REAL help needs to be offered. I do not believe sending people into a multi-billion pound company to stack shelves for free is in any way beneficial to those on the programme– it only serves to help a rich company that’s already rich.

Instead, let’s start getting people into university, college and supporting them through it. Let’s bring back jobs for people– real jobs. The government are paying their private training companies up to £14,000 for every single person on the work programme, over and above the cost of their regular dole. Couldn’t less money be spent sending people through college courses, university or other programmes where we would see a higher return? The way I see it, the unemployed are becoming less employable with every passing day on the work programme. I believe everyone can have productive work, work they enjoy and are fulfilled by, and I think it’s unfair to tar those genuinely unemployed with the same brush used to tar ‘layabouts’.

Q) So Dennis, you believe there are ‘layabouts’ milking the system?

 
A) I do, and I know that there are more than a few out there. The government has every right to try and keep those people from sucking precious monies from the public purse. But should it be to the detriment of those actually trying to find work? No, absolutely not.

Q) How many people did you actually meet who found work on the programme?

A) (laughs) Found work? None. Sanctioned– many.

Q) Sanctioned?

A) The sanction is the way the government and the system control the jobseekers– if they don’t do as they’re told, then they just cut the money off. If you miss an appointment or you’re ill, you can be sanctioned. Then, how are you meant to survive? There are “crisis loans” available, but good luck getting one. It’s a fear-based, bullying system.

Q) So, you believe the government are willingly cutting people off from benefits and squeezing them to try and make them drop off?

A) Well, I don’t remember saying that, but, yes if you’d like to put it that way– yes– I think there are probably mandates out there that ask the Job Centre to cut people off as much as possible.

Q) What’s the difference between the Job Centre and the work programme?

A) The Job Centre is one of those things that we all know about. It’s the first stop. You go in and see an advisor and they, on the whole, do try to help put you on the right track towards finding a new job. They have targets and regulations, but on the whole, they are pretty straight up and if you follow the basic rules, you receive your dole payment without issue.

The “Work Programme” is something else altogether. I think you could sum it up quite easily as ‘forced labour’. You are sent into a work placement, whether you want to or not; whether it suits your skills or not; and you work. For free. I’ve heard some horror stories and I, myself, had an awful time.

The other part is the “Work Programme” scheme to teach people supposed new skills and help them to write CV’s. The training centre I attended was a complete waste of time. The turnover of staff seemed as though there was a revolving door. The CV’s are useless and to my knowledge sending an architect to a basic maths course is just a weak way to waste money.

Q) Care to elaborate?

A) Sure. I was sent to a placement at a leading gardening store and was shown a health and safety video– then I was sent out to work in a busy warehouse without protective clothing– gloves or the like– legally mandated by health and safety law. When I complained, I was told it was too expensive and we didn’t need them.

As for the architect in one of my classes– there were also health and safety officers, accountants and other professionals sitting through a very basic maths course and to my knowledge many are still doing the same course six months on. As I said– it’s just a way to keep bodies in seats so these training companies can keep charging the government.

Q) Can you tell me which store?

A) The name doesn’t matter. Take your pick. I have heard horror stories from charity shops, supermarkets– you name it and it’s been heard of. As far as I can see, it’s the same across the board, no matter which store it is.

Q) So what do you intend to do now?

A) I am promoting the book. I have several interviews lined up. I had a journalist call me the other day offering to set up a TV interview– the works. I can’t wait– I want to fight for those guys who have no one to fight for them. I believe people should have freedom and choice. If you are unemployed then you shouldn’t automatically become a slave to the system. You should be assisted to find a career that is right for you.

Q) How does the programme affect working people?

A) Good question. Well, as you know, Slavery was abolished many years ago. If we bring back slavery– who will want to pay people to work? This system is bringing down wages across the board. The end effect will be simple– more people will become unemployed and then be thrown in as slave workers. The government will create a wider gap between the rich and the poor. The middle class will disappear and years of hard work will be thrown down the drain.

Q) I believe you are very brave to even attempt to sell this book. There are people out there who are going to call you a liar.

A) Alex, I know, and there always are. The truth is in the book and if people want to insist that those on benefits are having a great time, I suggest they try it for themselves. Let the Tories go down and work at supermarkets and perhaps they would be kind enough to give their real, well-paid job to a work programme worker. I can tell you, there are qualified people out there who would be able to do it just as well. I don’t believe all this crud about “knowing your place”. The world is there for those who want it– the world is everyone’s– it doesn’t  just belong to those guys with huge bank accounts.

Q) Have you got another book in mind?

A) Yes. I am half tempted to compile case-study interviews with people who went through the “Work Programme”. It would be an interesting eye-opener for all those who say that my experience was some sort of aberration. Let people see what real people are going through and let’s give everyone a voice.

Q) Are you a ‘Working Class Hero’?

A) No. John Lennon was a working class hero. I am just a guy who wants people to be treated fairly. I don’t believe in sitting at home on my arse all day. I believe in work and let’s get people into jobs that will give them a fair lifestyle. Let them add to the economy and let them enjoy the prosperity others enjoy.

Q) Thanks, David, I better let you go, you seem to be pretty busy!

A) I have got a long road ahead of me spreading the word of the silent majority and I intend to see it through to the end.

David was busy with other interviews at the time. I spent enough time with him to realise that he has a story here that is growing daily. His book is a hit and he himself is certainly driven enough to realise it. I wanted to give you a taste of what this guy is like. I have read the book and I know it’s a good one. Find it here and then tell David what you think of it.

Facebook page:


60,000 Patients Put on Death Pathway Without Being Told


Hunt calls Death Pathway "a fantastic step forward"


Minister Jeremy Hunt says Controversial End-of-Life Plan is 'Fantastic'

'Up to 60,000 patients die on the Liverpool Care Pathway each year without giving their consent, shocking figures revealed yesterday.


  • Pathway involves the sick being sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids

  • Families kept in the dark when doctors withdraw lifesaving treatment

  • Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said pathway was a 'fantastic step forward'

  • Anti-euthanasia group said: ‘The Pathway is designed to finish people off double quick'

  •  

    Up to 60,000 patients die on the Liverpool Care Pathway each year without giving their consent, shocking figures revealed yesterday.

    A third of families are also kept in the dark when doctors withdraw lifesaving treatment from loved ones. Despite the revelations, Jeremy Hunt last night claimed the pathway was a ‘fantastic step forward.'

    
    the unfolding scandalHealth trusts are thought to have been rewarded with an extra £30million for putting more patients on the LCP.








    In comments that appeared to prejudge an official inquiry into the LCP, the Health Secretary said ‘one or two’ mistakes should not be allowed to discredit the entire end-of-life system.


    But Elspeth Chowdharay-Best of Alert, an anti-euthanasia group, said: ‘The Pathway is designed to finish people off double quick. It is a lethal pathway.

    ‘Mr Hunt has made a nonsense of the claim of his ministers that there is going to be an independent inquiry.’

    The review follows a public outcry over a string of disturbing cases, highlighted by this paper, in which patients or their families were ignored.

    The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.
    
    


    Tory long-term plans to kill the welfare state, Cabinet papers reveal

    
    Thatcher: Dreams coming true
    
    UK government Cabinet papers from 1982, now released under the 30-year disclosure rule, confirm that the dismantling of the welfare state, the privatisation of the NHS and the savage cutting of public services has been a long-held ambition of the Conservative party.

    All that stopped them making their dream come true in the 1980s was the knowledge that it would be politically unacceptable. But the ambition has nonetheless been nurtured over the decades, and with the recent banking crisis the perfect opportunity arose to implement it.

    As the public was bombarded by economic doom and gloom from every angle, Conservative Party ideologues knew that this was the best chance they would probably ever get. Policies that would have been unacceptable under normal circumstances could now be presented as “regrettable, but necessary”, in order to save our economy.

    That is why George Osborne, rather bizarrely for a Chancellor, put so much effort into talking the UK economy down, to convince us all that we were in desperate straits, such that desperate measures were called for.

    This, combined with a stream of propaganda that suggested a section of the population were idle parasites bleeding the country dry, paved the way for cuts to benefits and the punitive treatment of the unemployed.
    Prime Minister David Cameron uses a cricketing metaphor to describe this process, he calls it ‘rolling the pitch’, or preparing the ground politically.

    A similar process is happening now with the National Health Service. A constant stream of stories about poor care and neglectful staff have started to appear in sections of the media, presumably so that when the public wake up to the fact that the NHS has actually been privatised, and therefore abolished as we know it, it will not be mourned too much, and the outcry will be diminished.

    So when Mr Cameron and other members of the government talk about "tough choice"’ they are really being rather disingenuous. They are actually implementing policies that the Conservative party have wanted to implement for decades. Their choices may be tough on us, but they actually are their choices. Others can, and should, be made.
    ----------
    © Bernadette Meaden has written about religious, political and social issues for some years, and is strongly influenced by Christian Socialism, liberation theology and the Catholic Worker movement. She is an Ekklesia associate and regular contributor.

    Source

    ‘History Will Be Your Judge’ ~ by Tracy Rockley

    British Holocaust Memorial Centre
     
    “History will be your judge”

    By Tracy Rockley 


    Sent to Mr. Goff Daft : 
    Head of the Correspondence Team, Department of Work and Pensions, Caxton House Tothill Street London SW1 H 9DA 



    ConDems are fast becoming the Nazis of the 21st century. 

    Strokes, Parkinson’s Disease, Motor Neurone Disease, Multiple Sclerosis; Cystic Fibrosis:

    ARE NOT LIFESTYLE CHOICES 

    I did not visit Tesco’s one day to get a life changing disease because I wanted to spend the rest of my life in a wheelchair, having my food cut up for me, having someone shower me and dress me.

    It will no doubt come as a surprise to you but I worked full time for 35 years, paying national insurance whilst under the stupid belief that I was paying it in case the worst happened and I ever became unable to work.

    How many people have paid in for 20, 30, 40 years and believe they are paying into a common ‘safety net’ when in reality it is no such thing?

    Why does the Government not tell the truth that the term ‘national insurance’ is in reality a misnomer?

    It does not mean what it says on the tin

    I am not ‘languishing’ on a disability benefit.

    I can no longer walk, move my legs to drive a car, hold a pen to write legibly, I am writing this on a touchscreen using a stylus taped to my left hand and painstakingly touching one letter at a time.

    I was a former civil servant, and if I was capable of continuing in that work I would be earning at least £30k a year and not surviving on the pittance I get from IB and DLA.

    I am not a “workshy”, “benefit-cheat”“scrounger” as portrayed in the media by the baying red-tops of the “burn the witch” mentality (Iain Duncan Smith‘s right-wing propaganda specialists).

    At least the broadsheets still tell the reality of life for disabled people under the ConDem eugenics programme.

    The Nazi parallels are getting harder to ignore

    I often worked two jobs (both declared so yes, I paid NI and tax on both) so I could pay a mortgage and keep a car on the road, holiday in America, buy furniture, clothes, have a life.

    Everything I own I worked and paid for.

    I was forced to give up work 8 years after diagnosis, when my condition deteriorated to the point I could no longer cope and was permanently in a wheelchair, marinating in my own urine at times because I am incontinent and have no control over my bladder.

    I have asked for a medical so I can be assessed – but I have now been declared fit for work, put on job seekers allowance and given 365 days to get a job before my ESA is terminated.

    No medical, no taking account of hospital consultants’ reports, MRI scans, etc.

    I have nothing left to lose so I am stockpiling some of my do not exceed the stated dose meds, so I can post my suicide on YouTube, using a live feed, and damaging the nasty party in the hope that you do not get back in power for at least 50 years.

    My hope is that call me Dave C, IDS, Chris Grayling and the rest of the Nazi ConDems, their spouses and children, mothers and fathers enjoy the delights of Multiple Sclerosis or Motor Neurone Disease, Parkinson’s or have a wonderful stroke.

    Oh, what fun that will be for you, but just don’t think you can claim any benefits! 

    You can just starve like the rest of us plebs!

    Source

    Should paralympians who sold out disabled be rewarded? [Reblogged]

    
    121221183310553_paralympic_121221183307745_1
    Paralympians: Siding with Atos against their fellow disabled?
    
    I had to laugh after reading an article in the “Independent” today about how some of the Paralympians are pissed off they didn’t get as much recognition as their able-bodied comrades.

    What the fuck do they honestly expect, are they that nieve in thinking the establishment would put them on the same level as the able-bodied athletes? I for one refused to watch the Paralympic Games for one particular reason, the reason being that the Paralympians in the main refused to support fellow disabled citizens over the Atos Sponsorship of the entire games, they sided with the games bosses for no other reason than selfishness, for a period of 2 weeks they decided to turn their backs on fellow disabled people who were and are continuing to fight against the torture of the Atos Assessment Process.

    As far as I’m concerned any awards accepted by the Paralympians from the British Government are stained with the blood of fellow disabled people who have fought for themselves and for others who cannot fight back, thousands of people have died because of the company who sponsored the Olympic Games, Atos/DWP have the blood of countless disabled and sick people, did any of the Paralympians think of those people when selling their souls for an honour or piece of silver or gold?

    
    _45114447_leepearson220
    Pearson: Pissed off he didn’t get a KnightHood
    
    Don’t get me wrong, what paralmypians achieve is wonderful, their personal dedication to their sport is amazing, sometimes though one has to put aside ones own personal goals and look at the bigger picture, by competing in the games and not taking every opportunity in speaking out about Atos and it’s assessment process was a terrible missed opportunity, not only for those ordinary members of society who are disabled but also for the Paralympian Athletes themselves, don’t forget that for many of those who competed they would not have been able to do so without the benefit of DLA, many have now had it removed or will in the very near future have it removed, maybe when they try to live their lives without this benefit maybe then they will understand the anger felt by us ordinary crips?Many of the Paralympians who are now infamous have forgotten the others in society who are not as fortunate as themselves, maybe selling your fellow citizens down the road for a few moments of celebrity will come back to haunt you, I for one will not be shedding any tears for you, the only tears I shed are for those who lost their lives fighting against the Political Ideology of the political elite, you had your chance now stop whingeing about not getting a Fucking knighthood….

    Paul Smith
    Founder
    Atos Victims Group News 

    Council leaders warn cuts will spark civil unrest [guardian]

    
    Alarming predictions of social unrest and the break-up of civil society have been delivered by the leaders of three of England's biggest cities, amid new evidence that government policies are widening – rather than narrowing – the economic divide between north and south.

    In a letter to the Observer, the council leaders of Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield – where Nick Clegg is an MP – issue a plea to government to halt cuts that they say unfairly penalise the north relative to the south, before crime and community tensions erupt on the streets.

    Their joint assault comes as fresh analysis shows that one of the government's flagship policies to promote housebuilding and economic activity across the whole country, the New Homes Bonus, is draining money away from northern councils, while swelling coffers in their southern equivalents.

    Reacting to the latest cuts announced to council budgets this month – under which a further 2% of spending reductions were unveiled by the chancellor, George Osborne, in addition to the 28% already in train – the council chiefs say ministers in Whitehall appear to be adopting a "Dickensian" view of the world, which is a betrayal of traditional one nation conservatism.

    Calling for a change in the way funding is allocated, to make it fairer to the north, they say that while everyone agrees on the need for savings, the coalition austerity programme has gone too far and will soon backfire with chaos on the streets and further economic stagnation. "Rising crime, increasing community tension and more problems on our streets will contribute to the break-up of civil society if we do not turn back," they write.

    "The one nation Tory brand of conservatism recognised the duty of government to help the country's most deprived in the belief that economic and social responsibility benefited us all.

    "The unfairness of the government's cuts is in danger of creating a deeply divided nation. We urge them to stop what they are doing now and listen to our warnings before the forces of social unrest start to smoulder."

    The council leaders argue that under the coalition, northern cities have been hit far harder than those in the south, partly because of the withdrawal of government support to deprived areas that was received under Labour. The situation is made still worse, because during economic hard times the demands for services in poorer areas are greater.

    Having already budgeted for cuts of hundreds of millions of pounds since 2011, the council leaders – all from Labour-run cities – say the latest cuts have blown further holes in their finances, meaning that by 2018 they fear being unable to provide acceptable levels of essential services including social care for the elderly, refuse collection, and others such as libraries and sports facilities. On top of that they say their attempts to generate local economic activity are running into the sand because of lack of funds.

    Read more...

    Sunday, December 30, 2012

    Osborne: Information sent to Standards Commissioner


    He thinks he can get away with using taxpayers' money in a get-rich-quick property scheme, and then pocketing the profits. Only you can make him think again. It seems clear that he committed fraud. He should be jailed.He thinks he can get away with using taxpayers’ money in a get-rich-quick property scheme, and then pocketing the profits. It seems clear that he committed fraud. He should be jailed.







    Dear ——- —-,

    Thank you for your email of December 20, and for replying to my complaint about Rt Hon George Osborne MP so promptly.

    Herewith please find copies of Land Registry documents relating to the properties in question. These may be obtained from the Land Registry on request. It is clear from them that both properties were owned by Mr Osborne and were sold together – as a single transaction – to the new owners. Under those circumstances it is unreasonable to expect that the valuation of £445,000, which appears on both documents for the period when Mr Osborne owned those properties, relates to those properties individually; it is the value of both properties, taken together. That is how Mr Osborne bought them, and it is how he sold them. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to believe there are separate valuations for the land and the building.
    It must follow, therefore, that Mr Osborne’s claim for mortgage expenses towards use of the building in the pursuance of his Parliamentary duties also went towards payment of mortgage expenses on the paddock, and I understand it is now a belief that is widely held by the public, that Mr Osborne did not spend a single penny of his own money on the mortgage for the properties in question.

    There are questions that I cannot answer for you. I do not hold details of the single mortgage he held, that covered both the land west of Macclesfield Road (the paddock) and at Harrop Fold Farm – that would be a private document and its details would be a matter for him to divulge. Therefore I cannot say for certain whether he claimed for all of the mortgage interest or just a percentage covering the house. As a reasonable man, however, I can say that it seems unlikely he would put forward an arbitrary figure – and how would he know the correct valuation for the building alone, when he bought it and the paddock as a single package?

    You rightly state that the Commissioner has already inquired into Mr Osborne’s claims for his second home over the relevant period. The only conclusion I can draw from this, in the light of the above information, is that Mr Osborne may have misled the Commissioner about the true nature of his mortgage interest payments. I would imagine this is a serious offence against the Commissioner’s office; if it is not, I am sure that the general public would be as shocked as I would.

    Bear in mind also that the sum of money concerned in this affair is around £1 million. This is not a paltry amount and, if the taxpayers of the UK have been unwittingly subsidising a profit-making scheme for this man, it would be unreasonable to deny them knowledge of the matter and recompense for the misuse of their tax pounds.

    Thank you for your attention in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response. I understand that your office would not, in any case, proceed with an investigation without a written complaint, so I will put the necessary documents in the post at my earliest convenience.

    Source

    Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say


    The following report by Stephen Adams for the Daily Telegraph is perhaps the most shocking piece of news to be had this Christmas. More shocking still comes in the fact that in legal terms what he says is spot on, because until a child is born and registered, no legal person has been created, a legal person of course being a corporation.


    If nothing else what we gain from this diatribe is a glimpse into the mind of the corporate state, the report says :


    
    picture of baby
    Not an actual person?
    
    Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

    

    Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.


    The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

    The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

    The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

    They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a foetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

    Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a foetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

    “We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

    As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

    The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

    They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

    Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.
    “To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

    However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

    They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a foetus”.

    Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

    Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled ‘What is the problem with euthanasia?’

    He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

    Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

    What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

    While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

    Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” – a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

    He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

    Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College, said: “If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say ‘it’s doesn’t matter, she can get another one,’ is that what we want to happen?

    “What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new.”

    Referring to the term “after-birth abortion”, Dr Stammers added: “This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide.”

    Source

    Thatcher’s role in plan to dismantle welfare state revealed

    Newly released Downing Street documents show Tory cabinet considered compulsory charges for schooling and end to NHS


    Margaret Thatcher
    Margaret Thatcher at the Conservative party conference in 1982.
     
    Margaret Thatcher and her chancellor Sir Geoffrey Howe were behind a politically toxic plan in 1982 to dismantle the welfare state, newly released Downing Street documents show. She later attempted to distance herself from the plans after what was described as a “riot” in her cabinet.

    The proposals considered by her cabinet included compulsory charges for schooling and a massive scaling back of other public services. “This would of course mean the end of the National Health Service,” declared a confidential cabinet memorandum by the Central Policy Review Staff in September 1982, released by the National Archives on Friday under the 30-year rule.

    Nigel Lawson, then the energy secretary, said the report by the official thinktank on long-term public spending options caused “the nearest thing to a cabinet riot in the history of the Thatcher administration“.
     In her memoirs, Thatcher said: “I was horrified when I saw this paper. I pointed out that it would almost certainly be leaked and give a totally false impression … It was all a total nonsense,” claiming the proposals were never seriously considered by her or her ministers.

    But the 1982 cabinet papers show the politically explosive paper was discussed at a special half-day extended cabinet discussion on 9 September that year. They show that Thatcher and Howe had been encouraging the CPRS thinktank to come up with such long-term radical options since February that year and that Howe continued to defend them even after the cabinet “riot” described by Lawson.