The Tory Trussel Trust: Food Banks replacing benefits?

The Trussell Trust Food Bank founders, The people behind it:

The Trussel Trust, was introduced to dole offices specifically as an alternative to the ‘crisis fund’ previously run by the state

The Trussell Trust describes itself as “a Christian charity that does not affiliate itself with any political party”. It is controlled by Tory Party Councillor and Mayor of Worthing, Neil Atkins and director Chris Mould, who splits his time between the Trussell Trust and the Shaftesbury Partnership.

The Shaftesbury Partnership is a “practice of professionals committed to large scale 21st Century social reform.”

Co-founder was Nat Wei, who was appointed the Government’s Chief Adviser on Big Society in May 2010, now a life peer.

Other people in the Shaftesbury Partnership :

Dominic Llewellyn(Conservative party candidate in 2010 )who co-authored the government’s Big Society policies.

Shaftesbury’s recently departed head of operations Antony Hawkins states that he “developed conservative unemployment and welfare reform policy (“The Work Programme”). Planned the implementation of Conservative welfare policies in the Get Britain Working manifesto”.

The Shaftesbury Partnership’s aim is to “design our solutions so that they are both scalable and have sustainable business models, maximising the potential for social transformation”.

The Trussel Trust, was introduced to dole offices specifically as an alternative to the ‘crisis fund’ previously run by the state

If the Tories believe that their policies will reduce poverty, why are the instigators and creators of its ‘Big Society’ policies investing in, and directing food banks?

READ MORE

Is it constitutional for Parliament to reverse a judicial decision (in a hurry)?

The House of Lords Constitution Committee published its report earlier today on the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill. (Professor Adam Tomkins has drawn attention to this issue on his blog, and has promised a longer post on the subject in due course.)

The background to the Bill is formed by the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in R (Reilly and Wilson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 66, in which certain regulations concerning entitlement to benefits were struck down. New secondary legislation has already been made in order to fill the legal gap left by the quashing of the old regulations, but the new rules operate only prospectively. What, then, about people who were sanctioned improperly (i.e. by reference to the old, invalid rules)?

Normally, when a court quashes administrative acts or secondary legislation, the effect is to render (or, more accurately, confirm) that the measures are void ab initio (i.e. legally ineffective “from the very beginning”). So those who were sanctioned under the old rules were treated unlawfully, and are entitled to be paid the benefits they were improperly denied. But, says the Government, this would cost it £130 million: and so it is inviting Parliament to pass legislation—the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill—which would retrospectively change the law. That is, the Bill would make lawful the denial of benefits to individuals, even though the Court of Appeal ruled that denial to have been unlawful. What this amounts to, therefore, is the Executive using primary legislation to reverse the effect of a judicial decision.

One of the concerns raised by the Constitution Committee relates to the use of a fast-track procedure in order to enact this legislation—the effect of which is to reduce the time for parliamentary scrutiny. Even more fundamental, however, is the other issue raised in the report: namely, the retrospective nature of the legislation. As the Committee notes at para 14 of its report, this

engages the cardinal rule of law principle that individuals may be punished or penalised only for contravening what was at the time a valid legal requirement. According to the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, retrospective legislation is lawful. Nonetheless, from a constitutional point of view it should wherever possible be avoided, since the law should so far as possible be clear, accessible and predictable. This applies to civil penalties as well as criminal offences. In the words of the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill: “If anyone—you or I—is to be penalised it must not be for breaking some rule dreamt up by an ingenious minister or official … It must be for a proven breach of the established law of the land.”

This will not be the first time that a judicial decision has been undone via primary legislation. But that does not detract from the compelling nature of the points raised by the Constitution Committee. At root, this episode calls into question the relationship between the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament—and in this context it is worth reminding oneself that not all judges today accept that the latter necessarily prevails over the former. For example, in Jackson v Attorney-General [2005] UKHL 56, Lord Hope said:

Our constitution is dominated by the sovereignty of Parliament. But Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute. It is not uncontrolled in the sense referred to by Lord Birkenhead LC in McCawley v The King [1920] AC 691, 720. It is no longer right to say that its freedom to legislate admits of no qualification whatever. Step by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute legislative sovereignty of Parliament which Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone is being qualified.

Of course, it does not follow from this that the courts would respond to the new legislation by putting Parliament back it its place; such an outcome is highly unlikely. But what this episode does demonstrate is a profound lack of respect by the Executive (which is, inevitably, behind this legislation) for the judicial branch of Government. That lack of respect is evidenced by the use of a fast-track procedure to enact legislation which, given the enormity of any decision to reverse a judicial decision, deserves close and searching scrutiny.

The broader point, then, is that if our constitution is (as I think it is) based upon an unwritten but crucial mutual respect between the political and judicial branches, there are likely to be (unpredictable) consequences if one party ceases to treat the other with adequate respect. The capacity of courts to ensure the lawfulness of Executive action forms the centerpiece of our constitutional machinery for upholding the rule of law. And the use of primary legislation to reverse the effects of that process is therefore a fundamental attack upon it. If politicians fail to treat the courts and the rule of law with appropriate respect, politicians should not be surprised if the courts repay them in kind. Nor should it be assumed that judges would be acting unconstitutionally in doing so. This is not a plea for judicial supremacism. Far from it: it is a plea for the Executive and Parliament to recognise the need for restraint that is essential to the effective operation of our unwritten constitution.

Public law for everyone

Chris Spivey on Ian Duncan Smith [Contains strong language]

Fuck Off Smiffy.

Okay, lets talk common sense.

Ian Smith – because that’s who the cunt really is - couldn’t cut it as the Tory party leader and as such was made to suffer the humiliation of being told to “fuck off out of it” – thus condemning  him as being a totally useless cunt.

Never the less, you only have to look at Smiffy to know that he has delusions of grandeur (hence the made up double barrelled surname and fake CV) and an ego the size of the National Debt – thus making him a useless, lying cunt who is full of shit.

Throughout his time as an inept politician he has done fuck all for us, yet taken, and continues to take, a big, extremely undeserved, public funded wage, as well as claiming equally undeserved, fantastically inflated expenses – thus making him a drain on society. In turn, that fact makes him a useless, lying, bullshitting, cunt, who is a gross liability.

In accepting his over inflated, totally undeserved, public funded wage and expenses, he becomes guilty of fraud. Even more so when you realise that the ponce was claiming a big wage for his wife who did fuck all else other than bring the Smiffy kids up – thus making him a corrupt, criminal, useless, lying, bullshitting, cunt, who is a gross liability.

Enter multi millionaire Dave ‘the rave‘ Cameron, a mush with an extremely secretive and shady past, whom it transpires has the blatantly obvious mandate of leading the country into chaos and civil unrest.

What better way to do it than employ a corrupt, criminal, useless, lying, bullshitting, cunt, who is a gross liability and full of resentment in the knowledge that he is perceived as a joke – a sick joke at that.

The fact that the Cunt Cameron would employ such an obnoxious, pointless dog turd is a good measure of our Prime Ministers integrity. The fact that the Nation has allowed him to do so – and carried on doing so –  is a good measure of their stupidity.

So, is Idiot Dickhead Smiffy value for money? Lets start with ATOS, since Dickhead Smiff aims to shave £2.5 Billion of the ESA bill. Here is what Edinburgh Against Poverty say:

Despite a fraud rate of just 1%, plus £16 billion in unclaimed benefits, the Government are determined to toss 500,000 people who currently rely on sickness benefits into the bleakest labour market in a generation and to cut already meagre disability benefits to starvation levels.

Straight away, that £16 Billion unclaimed benefits figure jumps out at you and slaps you round the chops. So, in reality, the government ought to think themselves lucky. Remember, Benefit is an ENTITLEMENT.

ENTITLEMENT: something that you have a right to do or have, or the right to do or have something. (Cambridge On-line Dictionary)

  So, notwithstanding that the government will pay ATOS a minimum of £50,000,000 just to pass these people unfit, those people will then go on JSA. Course, they may then go on the Work Program eventually. ATOS is getting £500 Million Quid for running that little scam.

Since ESA fraud is estimated to cost the government  £250 Million, it isn’t hard to see the false economy there. Neither is that taking into account the untold misery that these cunts are imposing on those poor people.

Neither does the Work Program work. This from the Guardian:

Number geeks point out that, as stunningly bad as the Work Programme figures are, they are actually slightly worse than they look. Between 1 June 2011 and the end of July this year 877,800 people were referred to the Work Programme and only 31,240 people got jobs and stayed there long enough (three or six months) for the relevant company to get paid. This is 3.4%; the Department for Work and Pensions’ lowest expectation was 5%. But if they had done this evaluation in the regular way – June to May, rather than June to July – the figure would drop even lower: 2.5%. [...] Working Links, proud holder of Work Programme contracts worth £307,752,305, put out a press release a few weeks ago saying they’d found 40 people jobs in McDonald’s. It’s not exactly specialist knowledge, is it? “Psst, I know this low-profile employer that never advertises, but just might give you a trial … Ronald McDonald.” READ MORE

  Add to that the cost of the court cases, the changing of the law needed to keep it going, and the potential lawsuits for medical negligence and what you are left with is a massive failure by anyone’s standards in terms of both cost and human suffering…. The useless, self serving, nonce cunt, pasty faced imbeciles are meant to serve our interests not implement our destruction.

Then there is the Universal Credits that IDS is publicly crowing about, while no doubt privately shitting himself since he knows that the scheme is going to be as successful as the novel he wrote.

The Universal Credit scheme (UCS)  has already cost over £2 Billion to set up according to the major study undertaken by the Institution of Fiscal Studies (IFS). However, the IFS also say this:

Of course, moving from the current system of benefits and tax credits to a single benefit will require major administrative and IT changes. It is beyond the scope of this note to assess the risk involved.

So if the IFS cannot predict the risks involved, then you just know that we are fucked.

The IFS then goes on to say that the  UCS will cost a predicted £1.7 Billion to run once it is properly in place, but cannot even begin to predict how much the running costs will be in the transitional period… Way to go
IBS IDS.

According to the IFS the UCS will have this effect:

A total of 2.5 million working-age families will gain and, in the long run, 1.4 million working-age families will lose, and 2.5 million working-age families will see no change in their disposable income because their entitlements to Universal Credit will match their current entitlements to means-tested benefits and tax credits.

Therefore, there is a difference being made to 3.9 million families with a plus minus ratio of 1.1 million. Course, the plus and the minus benefits are unknown, but will obviously be more drastic to the minus ratio and negligible to the plus ratio. This will no doubt cancel out any savings, while at the same time plunge another 1.4 million families into deeper poverty.

So, once again a massive failure by anyone’s standards in terms of both cost and human suffering … Fucking useless, evil imbeciles. I fucking detest the solidified farts.

As for the bedroom tax. The cost of setting that up will also be in the £ billions. That’s on top of the £ Millions in police costs to marshal the mass protests. To be honest, I cannot see it being workable. I can think of at least one scam to avoid it, if ya know the right people.

In any case, there is much back peddling by the government on who will now have to pay, which the Daily Mirror describe as “Total Chaos”  and estimates has cost us an unnecessary £36 million.

I repeat; Cost us – not them… US!

Where the fuck is the accountability? Imagine if you or I cost our employers that amount of money through our incompetence?

And, to top it all, those on benefits will now have to pay something towards their Council Tax bill.

Now, what I haven’t seen anyone mention yet is that when you get notification of your benefit entitlement it states something along the lines of ; The Amount Of Money The Law Says You Need To Live On. That amount of money is then stated in X amount of pounds.

Therefore, that X amount of pounds is the minimum you are allowed to receive by law and will have been calculated on the number of things people have to pay out for in everyday life I.E. Food, and bills. However, that amount of money will not have taken into account money for Council Tax, since it is safe to assume that anyone on benefits who has rent to pay will also be claiming Housing & Council Tax benefit.

So, to my way of thinking, unless the government add more money to JSA, Income Support and ESA, they are breaking the law and violating your human rights  by now making those on benefits pay towards their Council Tax. After all, those people will now be living on less than what the law says you need to live on.

To my mind, the same applies to those having their benefits sanctioned. Never the less, are those who have been sanctioned still eligible to pay the council tax for those weeks that they were given no money?

The very fact that some fucking jobs-worth cretin who was no doubt bullied at school has the power to decide who gets to eat and who doesn’t is sick, sick, fucking sick. I’d burn the fucking Job Centre down, I would and say sanction that you cunt.

My position remains the same. People, if you roll over and pay these thing, you are mugs who are contributing to your own downfall… Wise up.

It is also up to you people to fight for and protect, those in society who cannot do it themselves. Nay, it is your duty as human beings… Your government, whom were elected by your naivity are not going to do it, so the task falls down to you… And remember! You have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

As for Iain Dickhead Smiffy boy! Lets kill the cunt.

Chris Spivey

Contact workfare exploiter Salvation Army – Day 2 Workfare Week of Action

Salvation Army International and UK HQs were paid a surprise visit to launch the week of action. [Photo: Sinister Pics]

Join the online day of action on Tuesday 19th March and tell workfare exploiters The Salvation Army exactly what the public think about their use of forced labour.

The Salvation Army released an astonishing statement recently which seems to suggest they will force people on sickness or disability benefits into unpaid work.

In a series of answers to questions asked on social media, the charity are unrepentant about their use of workfare. Responding to a question asking how they “can morally take sick and disabled people and force them to work?” the charity reply that they believe in “emancipation through employment” – a chillingly familiar phrase.

The Salvation Army have shown they are happy to act as Iain Duncan Smith’s workfare foot soldiers and yesterday their fight for the right to use unpaid workers was aggressive. The response to a peaceful protest at their UK head office was heavy handed, leaving one person temporarily arrested (until the police realised the accusation was entirely fabricated) after being falsely accused of assault.

Salvation Army need to be shown just how many people object to their use of forced unpaid labour. Join in the online day of action and tell them what you think!

Salvation Army UK can be contacted on facebook and on Twitter:
Tweet to @salvationarmyuk
Boycott Workfare

True Face of the Salvation Army – Workfare Protest Marred By False Arrest and Staff Aggression

There were shocking scenes at the South London offices of workfare exploiters the Salvation Army today as employees of the charity manhandled anti-workfare protesters, tried to seize personal property and then physically prevented them from leaving the building.

Astonishingly one person who managed to escape from the premises  before staff blockaded protesters inside was falsely accused of assault and then arrested.

The UK offices of the charity were visited by campaigners today as part of the National Week of Action Against Workfare.  Salvation Army are one of the largest charities left who use forced labour – under threat of benefit sanctions -  to staff their charity shops.  Most decent charities have pulled out in disgust at the exploitative nature of the scheme. The Salvation Army have no such principles and recently appeared to admit that they are even happy to use those on sickness or disability benefits as forced unpaid workers.
Today’s action began at the charity’s plush International Headquarters in the City of London.  A workfare army visited the charity holding a sermon extolling the benefits of forced labour in their reception area.  Meanwhile several people went downstairs to the cafe run by the charity and handed out leaflets.

Many people were shocked at the organisation’s open use of workfare, and thanked the protesters for making them aware of it.  The protest (pictured above) was good-natured and non-violent throughout and eventually a Major from the charity agreed to speak to those present.

The Major claimed that as the international headquarters for the charity, they were not responsible for the actions of the UK section of the Salvation Army.  When it was pointed out that protesters were there to show what was being done in the organisation’s name, he agreed that he was happy for the protest to remain in the building until they closed for the day.

He also suggested that campaigners should visit the UK Headquarters in Elephant & Castle who have the ultimate say of the charity’s use of workfare.  Not wanting to disobey an order from a Major that’s exactly what those present decided to do.

On arrival at the charity’s Elephant & Castle offices it was clear that a very different side of this supposedly Christian organisation would be on display.

At first several staff – who may have been security but never identified themselves as such – refused to allow protesters into the building.  In what appeared to be a change of heart they then relented and opened the doors to allow people inside.

Once inside another workfare sermon began and then some of those present began to sing hymns.  This seemed to particularly annoy the charity’s staff who called the police.  The mood quickly turned ugly as the Salvation Army’s bully boys began shouting at protesters that they were blocking fire exists and would be arrested – a claim which was clearly nonsense as there was easy access in and out of the building.

Despite not only having been told to visit by the organisation’s International Headquarters, and allowed onto the premises, they then began accusing people of trespass and demanding that people should give them their mobile phones and cameras.

Shocked at the aggresive response to a completely peaceful and non threatening action, a decision was made by the protesters to leave.  Sadly only one person made it out of the building as the Salvation Army thugs blocked the door and attempted to grab hold of people to physically prevent anyone from leaving.
As this took place the police arrived and one Salvation Army staff member began insisting the person who had escaped from the building had assaulted him, leading to the individual being arrested.  A stand off ensued as those inside were finally freed – the charity presumably deciding that kidnapping people in full view of the police was a step too far even for their shady operation.

Police were heard discussing amongst themselves that they had witnessed people being trapped inside by Salvation Army employees.  After tense negotiations it appeared even the police didn’t believe the charity’s wild claims and the individual accused of assault was de-arrested and allowed to leave.

After the good-natured protest earlier in the day this shocking sequence of events showed the true nature of this charity’s response to criticism.  Physical force, false allegations and abuse replaced the fake cheery PR front that the charity have attempted to portray when criticised for using workfare.

It seems that the Salvation Army are determined to silence any criticism of their dirty little workfare exploitation.  A day of online action in response to these events has now been called by Boycott Workfare tomorrow (Tues 18th March).

The Salvation Army are on twitter @salvationarmyuk
They can be found on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/salvationarmyuk

Spread the word and let’s tell the Salvation Army exactly what the public thinks of their workfare exploitation and attempted use of force and false allegations to silence criticism.

(watch this space for more contact info)

Follow me on twitter @johnnyvoid

The Void

Smoking Gun that shows the Tories lied about ALL their Welfare intentions [Sue Marsh]

Reblogged from Sue Marsh

And that's how it goes folks. Being me these days. Suddenly, out of the blue, someone sends me something so perfect, so shocking, so undeniable that my heart starts to beat faster.

So in an innocent little tweet from someone called Stephe Meloy sent me this wonderful, oh-so-detailed smoking gun.

http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/05/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Manifesto/Equalities-Manifesto.ashx 

Entitled "A Contract for Equalities" with (oh delicious irony) a foreword by Theresa May (Yes that's right, she IS the now Home Secretary who wants to abolish Human Rights) it is a detailed pre-election plan of what the Conservatives will and will not do if they win power in the 2010 election.

Best of all, as @mrsblogs points out on Twitter a link to launch the document urges "if we fail to make progress in these areas & do not deliver on our side of the bargain, then vote us out in five years time"

Theresa May assures us in her intro that

"Just as we are determined to fight poverty, so we are determined to fight prejudice and discrimination wherever it exists
No group, no minority, will be left behind on the road to a better future."

Which gives you the tone of pure fantasy of the rest of the document.

Initially, we are told, no-one too ill to work should be forced to. 

"Central to our plans is a clear distinction between people who can’t work and those who can. of course, there are some people who due the nature of their disability or illness will not be able to work. These people who cannot work because of a disability or illness should never be forced   to work."

So far, 22,620 Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) claimants in the 
WRAG  (Work Related Activity Group  - people found to be severely sick or disabled and unfit for immediate work) have been sanctioned - some onto the government's work programme - under threat of losing their income between 1st June 2010 and 31st May 2012 

"We are very much focused on
helping all who are capable of work, not just
those who are nearest to the job market."

Recent evidence to parliament's Work & Pensions committee shows providers ARE favouring those easiest to help


Here's where it get's really interesting. They WON'T be scrapping Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

"As disabled people themselves are best placed to judge how to meet their care needs, we will preserve Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance as cash benefits, which can be used to support family care and costs arising from their disability. "
Disability Living Allowance Mobility Component for blind people the current rules for people claiming the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance mean that it is only available to people who are physically unable to walk. This is unfair to visually impaired people as they too face mobility difficulties. While the law has now been altered to enable these rules to be changed, it is still not a reality for people with no useful sight for orientation purposes. We will implement this change to help support people with visual impairments to live more independently"

Expressing the desire to EXTEND a benefit, would certainly imply you had no intention of abolishing it the moment you came to power. The Conservatives announced a new benefit to replace it just weeks later

They go on to say they will "simplify the assessment process for accessing services" for disabled children,

they say they will "increase the number of health visitors by 4,200" and that they won't abolish Child Trust Funds or the top up payments for disabled children.

But here's the real killer punch at the end :


Under a section entitled Changing attitudes towards disabled people :

"A Conservative government will tackle the stigma and prejudice that still persists towards disabled people, particularly those with mental ill-health."

In fact, a misleading scrounger rhetoric, knowingly engineered and sustained by this government, has left millions of disabled people living in fear and allowed the single greatest attacks on disabled people in living memory. Note the HUGE spike in negative language about welfare claimants and the disabled from 2010 when this government came to power.

There are literally countless lies here, and I've only focussed on the very narrow subject of welfare reform and adult disability. Other groups are infinitely better qualified than me to discuss the many many other sections to this document. I'm sure they will want to when they see this utter fabrication from our current government.

PLEASE SHARE THIS : SHOW THE REST OF THE COUNTRY JUST HOW FAR THIS GOVERNMENT ARE PREPARED TO GO. 

Diary of a Benefit Scrounger

Welfare Wrongs and Human Rights: a summary [kittysjones]

 

A summary of discussion with Anne McGuire, Shadow Minister for disabled people.

The Coalition is not a Government that recognises the intrinsic value and worth of life. It is not a Government that recognises human potential, or values personal growth and development. It is not a Government that values social evolution and progress. Trying to explain these fundamental concepts to a Tory is like pondering how best to describe a rainbow and shooting stars to a blind man with no imagination. Or soul.

It is common opinion amongst us that the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) – no matter how much it may be re-designed – is not fit for purpose, and that no-one has any faith in it because of the appalling damage already inflicted on so many members of the disabled community. The overwhelming consensus is that it needs to be scrapped. Atos have no credibilty whatsoever, with most of us regarding them with loathing and fear. Unfortunately, many sick and disabled people also recognise that successive Governments have contracted Atos, trust and faith in Government and Ministers has receded. I explained to Anne that some blame the previous Labour Government for current problems, as they originally contracted Atos to undertake the WCA. I don’t subscribe to this view,  personally, but I raised the point because it’s one that I’ve encountered frequently, and I recognise that it’s an important issue for some. However, I would like to clarify that I don’t hold a previous Government responsible for what the current one does.

Anne explained that the original Labour Party contract with Atos did not happen within a context of welfare cuts, and was very different to the one that the current Government have with Atos.  Labour support some kind of assessment, and the old system typically involved a decision that was made entirely by the DWP, and the decision was regarded as final. Labour had felt at the time that this needed addressing with some form of independent decision-making mechanism.

We know that the WCA has had such devastating consequences for so many sick and disabled people that it would never be trusted again, no matter how much it was redesigned and “improved” by ANY Government. However, the context of the Labour version of WCA, when it was piloted, was a completely different one to present day. There were many more jobs available, we were not in a recession, and there was support available (and well funded) for disabled people who wanted to work. Anne pointed out again that it is in the context of the welfare reforms, which are about taking away essential support, rather than providing it, that the aims of assessment have become grossly distorted. The original aims were intended to support sick and disabled people. That is clearly not the Coalitions’ aim at all.

“A Conservative Government is organised hypocrisy” – Benjamin Disraeli.

Disability living allowance supports many in work, and despite Labours’ pleas for common sense safeguards, according to the Hardest Hit survey, three in ten disabled people stated that without DLA their carer would not be able to work. Carers UK estimates that 10,000 people could lose carer’s allowance as a result of cuts to DLA. Without this vital care, disabled people could be forced to turn to overstretched social care services. Liam Byrne  stated that here must now be an assessment, in the round, of all the changes hitting disabled people: a cumulative impact assessment. Esther McVey weakly said to the Commons that she wouldn’t order one because “Labour never did one.” Labour did complete a review, and informed this Government of the findings, and raised their concerns regarding the piloted WCA. They were completely ignored. Furthermore, Labour never inflicted the concerted attack we’re now seeing on disabled citizens. It was the Coalition that harshly “reformed” and reduced our welfare provision, and not Labour.

The Access to Work fund was re-established by the last Labour Government to ease the transition to work for disabled people, by paying grants to businesses for vital equipment. It was put in place to support people with disabilities, it aimed to reduce inequalities between disabled people and non-disabled people in the workplace by removing practical barriers to work. This fund has seen severe cuts since 2010, which flies in the face of this Government’s claim to “make work pay” for all. By reducing this essential funding, the Coalition have effectively excluded many from work.

Additionally, disabled people with the highest support needs have been left in fear and distress following a Government announcement that it is to callously abolish a key source of independent living support. The Government decision to close the Independent Living Fund and devolve responsibility to local authorities follows a consultation that disabled people claim is unlawful and on which an urgent hearing has been scheduled by the High Court to go ahead on 13/14 March 2013. Labour have also challenged the decision to close this crucial source of support. Opportunity for new applications for this funding was closed in June 2010 by the Coalition. Once again this plainly indicates that the Coalition do not consider the needs of disabled people as important, and clearly demonstrates the extent of their eager ideological drive to strip away essential provision and support for the vulnerable.

It’s important to acknowledge that there are those of us  who simply can not work. The  Labour Party agree that regardless of the national employment situation and support for those who could and wish to work, we must, as a civilised Society, make provision and support those who cannot work, too. I’m pleased that this important issue was recognised, because as we know, doctors are providing written evidence to the DWP and Atos that verifies people are not fit for work, and that professional and expert opinion and evidence is being ignored by people who are NOT qualified to decide otherwise. DWP “decision-makers” and Atos assessors have no expertise on medical conditions and how those impact on a persons’ capabilities for work. We know that the majority of Atos assessors are nurses or occupational therapists, and that Atos don’t take into account any medical facts at all: the assessment is entirely about “work capability”.

We informed Anne that we are acutely aware that every single part of the assessment process is designed to interpret any capability a person has to complete a task at all, no matter how small, as an indication that they can work. For example, if a person says that they watch TV, that translates as “can sit unaided for at least half an hour”, even if that half an hours viewing is done laid up in bed, propped up by pillows. Huge inferences are drawn from anything that a person can do, and translated into “work capability,” regardless of whether or not person can fulfil tasks without pain, fatigue and discomfort, and it always assumed that people can complete a task reliably, consistently and safely, unless it is explicitly stated that this isn’t the case. Even when it is expressed clearly, it is often ignored and omitted from the Atos reports. Anne acknowledged that there is a significant problem with the WCA descriptors, not least because of the many cases that have been brought to her attention regarding this issue.

Anne recognised that the WCA makes it very difficult for health professionals to exercise their professional judgement. It’s computer-based and has little or no regard to the complexity of the needs of severely disabled or sick persons. This is why the British Medical Association has condemned the WCA as unfit for purpose. Those who have been assessed often feel the opinion of their own health professionals have been overridden or ignored. As Iain McKenzie, Labour MP for Inverclyde, put it: “It is ridiculous to have people making an assessment based on a tick-list that looks like it should be used for an MOT on a car.” Anne has observed and acknowledged that people are having their lives ruined by a system that was designed to support them. It is outrageous; it is inhumane, it is shameful.

Labour conducted a review of the ESA pilot, and by the time they lost Office, they were aware of the fact that there were problems with the Work Capability Assessment: the main ones being that it did not acceptably accommodate fluctuating conditions, or mental health problems. Labour raised their concerns about this with Iain Duncan Smith, but he refused, as previously stated, to undertake an impact assessment, and he pushed the reforms through and made them law, regardless. Furthermore, the WCA was amended by the Coalition to be even less sensitive to how conditions impact on work capability. We know that when Atos were re-contracted by the Coalition, it was in the context of the “reforms”, and Atos are therefore contracted to remove support from the vulnerable. Dr Steven Bick revealed that there are targets imposed on staff at Atos, and  that only one in eight ESA claimants are passed as eligible for ESA (as “unfit for work”) regardless of their actual state of health and their capabilities.

This exposes what a sham the entire assessment process is, because it has been decided in advance that 7 out of 8 will lose their eligibility for ESA, no matter how much a person needs that support, or  how much of a negative impact this will have on the lives of those stripped of their ESA award. It’s therefore not terribly surprising that Atos reports contain so many widely reported “errors”, “inaccuracies” and “mistakes”. These are actually calculated and deliberate lies, which are also attempts at justifying taking away a persons’ benefit, regardless of the impact this will have on their well being and health. This is what Atos are contracted to do by the Coalition. This has nothing whatsoever to do with genuine assessment. It has everything to do with denying people what they are entitled to, and what they have already paid for. It has everything to do with an ideological drive to strip our welfare provision to the bone.

We know that the PIP assessment has targets attached to it, because Esther McVey has indicated this by stating in advance that “More than 300,000 disabled people to have benefits cut”. It is concerning that in making her statement to Parliament, Disabilities Minister Esther McVey set out very clearly the numbers of people who she believed will qualify for the new benefit. But not surprising in light of how the whole legislative process has been conducted by Esther McVey. Conservatives are not known for following established procedure and protocol, nor do they value transparency and accountability.

Labour recognise it is people that are the most vulnerable who will bear a disproportionate share of the  cuts, simply because of the inequality they face in employment means they are more likely to rely on benefits. In other words they are facing a double penalty simply because of their characteristics – disadvantaged in the (somewhat limited) labour market and now targeted by benefit reform. This also raises concern about human rights, since this constitutes discrimination on the basis of “characteristics”, in accord with Labour’s Equality Act.

Anne has voiced major concerns about the mandatory workfare introduced to the ESA Work Related Activity Group, and the sanctions attached to this. She commented: “How can people be punished into work, especially during a recession?” Again, I pointed out that the issue isn’t so much one concerning the availability of jobs, but rather, it is one concerning the fact that people who have been deemed unfit for work by a doctor are being bullied into unlimited workfare and finding jobs, when they cannot, and ought not be expected to undertake these tasks. Anne agreed again that those who cannot work ought to be fully supported, and should not be not coerced into any kind of work if professional opinion is that they are unfit for work.

Again, the issue of human rights contraventions was raised, and Anne told us that there is a substantial backlog of work, concerning human rights cases, and this is because the  Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) – established by Labour – has had its funding severely reduced  this past two years, as stated previously. One cannot help but wonder just how calculated the cuts are in light of the extremely punitive nature of the reforms, and the continued blatant disregard of basic human rights, which is very evident in Tory-led policies. Such a well-coordinated attack on our rights seems unlikely to have happened by coincidence.

Since the meeting with Anne took place, I have remained in regular contact with her, and Anne Begg, John McDonnell, Tom Greatex, Dennis Skinner and my own MP, Kevan Jones. I send out information and articles on a regular basis, to ensure that the continued impact and the consequences of current policies are known to the Labour party. By raising awareness, we can prompt the Opposition to challenge effectively. That is needed, because we have a Government that doesn’t follow procedure and protocol, and does not like to share information regarding its own policies, even to the relevant Parliamentary Committees, let alone with the Opposition.

I am quite serious when I use the term “authoritarian” to describe the Coalition. This is what happens when we become a complacent population, and leave decision making entirely to politicians. Especially Conservatives. We know from history that under Conservative Governments, poverty, unemployment, inequality and civil unrest increase, whilst the wealthy accumulate even more wealth, and the recognition and accommodation of human rights, welfare, and all of our support provisions and programs decrease.

“Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it” –  Boris Pasternak

We need to learn how to be responsible citizens and participate in how our Country is governed. And we must. We do have a choice: we can each contribute something, when we are able, and in our own way, to raise public awareness and demand positive change. Governments must reflect and serve the needs and interests of the whole population, and not just an elite. It’s our duty and responsibility to make sure that they do.

It’s our responsibility to keep the Labour Party informed of our needs, to push for effective challenges to be made against the Coalition, and to promote, prioritise and value social progress, the recognition of human potential, fairness and equality. We set the policy agenda, as voters, if only we will take that responsibility.
The Coalition are dismantling democratic process. David Cameron has already stated that he wants to “reduce” consultations, judicial review, and equality impact assessments, amongst other processes that are essential to human rights safeguarding, accountability and transparency. “It’s not how you get things done” he said of these essential processes of inclusion and democracy. Ask yourself what it is that he wants to “get done”, which requires bypassing democratic process and human rights safeguarding. Clearly, this is a Government that certainly intends to continue to inflict harm.

We must collectively fight the Coalition’s steady attack on our support programs, welfare provision, human rights, and their determined intentions of undoing all that is civilised and decent about our society. We must maintain those (Labour) principles that make society welcoming, supportive and inclusive to all.  It is our own responsibility to recognise the equal worth and potential of every person, and the intrinsic value of each life. It’s an established, historically verified fact that Conservatives never have, and they never will.

Labour are currently consulting with the public on a National level, regarding the policy content of their Manifesto. That’s democracy in action. Make sure you have your say. It matters.

You can also get involved in Labour policy ideas here  and here , or you can contact your nearest Labour MP here .

Further reading:-

Full length report of the meeting and discussion with Anne McGuire (Original text)

 
This is what happens when we do collectively push for positive change and participate: we arm the Opposition with crucial information, detail and cases studies so that they can challenge effectively (from column 1050 onwards.)

The Shadow State: The “dehumanising, degrading” treatment of disabled people
New Statesman

ESA SOS 
Sue Marsh

The ESA Revolving Door Process 
Kitty Jones

Clause 99, Catch 22
Kitty Jones

Back to the Dark Ages as the Tories plan to scrap your Human Rights
Mike Sivier, Vox Political

 

Many thanks to Robert Livingstone for all of his outstanding artwork

kittysjones

An idiot speaks: Time for Europe to let British farmers grow GM food, says environment minister

'Genetically modified crops should be sold in Europe, despite consumers' concerns about 'Frankenstein foods’, the Environment Secretary Owen Paterson will say.

Mr Paterson, who has previously spoken out about the benefits of GM technology, has decided to make a high-profile speech in the hope of turning the tide on the issue.

It is understood he has the firm backing of Chancellor George Osborne, who believes GM food could provide opportunities for British farmers.'

Read more: An idiot speaks: Time for Europe to let British farmers grow GM food, says environment minister

Iain Duncan Smith Bashes the Bishop [the void]

As if we didn’t already know that Iain Duncan Smith is a wanker, the bungling Work and Pensions Secretary has resorted to bashing the bishops in yet another rant defending his vicious social security slashing regime.

His latest outburst comes after 43 Bishops wrote to him warning that

“As a civilised society, we have a duty to support those among us who are vulnerable and in need. When times are hard, that duty should be felt more than ever, not disappear or diminish.

‘It is essential that we have a welfare system that responds to need and recognises the rising costs of food, fuel and housing.”

  This led to yet another tantrum from the Work and Pensions Secretary who claimed: “There is nothing moral or fair about a system that I inherited that trapped people in welfare dependency. Some one in every five households has no work – that’s not the way to end child poverty”.

And the thing is, for once in his life he’s right.  There is nothing moral about a system that condemns millions to lives of unemployment and poverty whilst people like Iain Duncan Smith live in luxury (in his case scrounging off his wife’s inheritance).  There is nothing moral about a society that excludes disabled people or those with mental health conditions from fully participating.  There is nothing moral about the shocking fact that people who often do some of the hardest physical work are not even paid enough to keep them fed, housed and warm.  There is nothing moral about capitalism at all.

Yet Iain Duncan Smith’s answer is not full employment and neither is it greater workplace access for disabled people – which has fallen by over a third since this Government weren’t elected.  His answer is not to demand a living wage or rent caps or more council housing – nothing must trouble the landlord class after all.  His answer is not even quality training and free education to at least provide an illusion of social mobility.
His answer is certainly not to question the system under which an arms dealer or loan shark becomes rich beyond belief whilst being a parent or carer is no longer even judged to be legitimate work because it doesn’t make a profit for the rich.  Jesus Christ would weep if only he weren’t a largely fictional character from an archaic Middle Eastern soap opera.

Iain Duncan Smith’s answer is to punish the poor for their own predicament.  His idea of a moral society is one where those with least are forced to claw each other’s eyes out in the scramble for the few scraps the rich toss down from above.  And for those who don’t make it into insecure low paid work, let them die in the gutter.  Let their children starve.  Let them lose their homes and be forcibly relocated hundreds of miles away from school, family and friends. Force them to work without pay or let them beg in the street as a lesson to the rest of us.

Honest capitalists will admit that unemployment is vital for the system to function.  That otherwise workers, not bosses, might have the power.  No capitalist country anywhere in the world has achieved real full employment and almost all, including the UK, have given up trying.  There are hundreds of people chasing every vacancy in some parts of the country.

Iain Duncan Smith is either all too aware that unemployment is here to stay and doesn’t care what happens to those unable to find work.  Or he is arrogant enough to believe his tinkering with social security contains the magic button that will somehow fix the problems created by capitalism.  Problems that no-one else, anywhere in the world, has come close to solving.  And his cure is forced unpaid work, benefit cuts and homelessness.

In other words he is either stupid or a genuinely nasty human being whose true agenda is merely to brutalise the very poorest.  Every crisis needs a scapegoat, and Iain Duncan Smith has chosen low income families, disabled and unemployed people as the human sacrifice to atone for the sins of the rich.
Follow me on twitter @johnnyvoid

the void

Liam Byrne : “Sanctions are vital to give back-to-work programmes their bite”

Yesterday in parliament Liam Byrne said to Iain Duncan-Smith “Sanctions are vital to give back-to-work programmes their bite”. Not only does Byrne believe in forced labour he thinks it should be enforced by withdrawal of benefits. Byrne has also used the strivers v shirkers rhetoric that sought to divide the poorest sectors of society and have them fighting one another.

Byrne is Labour’s  Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, their very own Iain Duncan-Smith.  Byrne “worked for the multi-national consulting firm, Accenture and merchant bankers, N M Rothschild & Sons, before co-founding a venture backed technology company, e-Government Solutions Group, in 2000 before entering parliament.”

It’s not clear what qualification and life experiences Byrne has that makes  him suitable to be head of Labours welfare department.  Baron Freud who is head of the present governments welfare reform also has an investment banking background. I wrote elsewhere that this was like putting the fox in charge of the chicken shack.

Neither Freud or Byrne have any idea at all of what they are doing to ordinary people: Money people who survey the wasteland they are creating from the ivory towers of ignorance  and ideology. Byrne likes to be interviewed beside photographs of Tony Blair. Maybe this indicates the share a common set of values and work within the same moral universe that turns black into white and deception becomes just another word for truth.

That the Labour Party has such a person in charge of its welfare policies shows that it is bust completely. In some way I dislike Iain Duncan-Smith less than Byrne because he is doing what you would expect from a party that represents money. Byrne is just another name to add the list that is headed “Blair” – the list of those who have betrayed ordinary people for mere money or power.

Welfare Sorrows

‘May? Fox? Nobodies! Don’t forget my benefit cap will ruin workers’ pay claims’, says Smith*

Return of the savage: Iain Duncan Smith is using his benefit cap to claw back workers’ rights. YOUR rights.

It’s as if they’re having a competition.

After Liam Fox, the disgraced former Defence Secretary with nothing at all to gain from his outburst, made a fool of himself by making a series of outrageous demands about government spending (the BBC website picks out “We need to begin a systematic dismantling of universal benefits and turning them into tax cuts”), Iain Duncan Smith stepped into the breach to “dismiss” the Archbishop of Canterbury’s warning – despite its firm basis in fact – that benefit changes will drive more children into poverty.

Clearly the man this blog refuses to call anything but Smith is getting worried that he might fail to retain Vox Political‘s coveted Monster of the Year award in the face of such strong competition – don’t forget Theresa May weighed in with a plan to strip everyone in this country of their hard-won human rights – that he felt it necessary to step up.

We’ll put the rabid Fox down first. Vox correspondent Big Bill called it right when he said Fox was already damaged goods.

“He can be sent out to air these ideas without any further potential loss to the party,” Bill wrote.

“If Cameron started airing them or Osborne, there’d potentially be loss to their status, I imagine Tory thinking has it, and they’re too valuable to waste but Fox is already a political phantom, no more than the fading echo of a career mournfully walking abroad at Westminster.

“If more opprobrium’s heaped on his head, well, then, the party’s learned those ideas won’t fly and no loss to anyone. If by any chance they start to be taken seriously then these ideas will indeed be taken up by Osborne and Cameron.”

Judging from the comedy Prime Minister’s response, the ideas didn’t fly at all and in fact went down like the R101.

But let’s not waste the opportunity to pour scorn on Cameron’s comments. Having already fallen foul of the facts in the past, he simply couldn’t resist the opportunity to show that he hasn’t learnt anything and loves the taste of his own shoes.

“There is one piece of advice I won’t take. That’s the piece of advice saying ‘You ought to cut the National Health Service budget’,” said the PM, past the foot he’d just wedged in his mouth.

How quick he was to forget that Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, wrote to caution the government that its claims of increased spending on the health service, year on year, during every year of the current Parliament, were inaccurate. Mr Dilnot stated that the figures show a real-terms cut in expenditure between the 2009-10 tax year when Labour was in power, and 2011-12.

Camoron has never acknowledged this fact, even though it comes from an authoritative source. Maybe he’s no longer capable of listening to anything but the voices in his head.

He continued, saying it was “absolutely right that we have got a plan to get on top of our deficit”. Nice one, Call-Me-Dave. It is indeed, absolutely correct that you have a plan to get on top of the deficit. It’s also absolutely right that your plan does not work; will never work; will in fact make the deficit worse. It’s a plan to give you an excuse to shrink the state.

In that sense, Cameron’s difference of opinion with Fox is a sham. Perhaps he’s using Fox’s words to make his own scheming seem less objectionable.

Too bad. After nearly three years of this red-faced buffoon we can all see through him like a fishnet negligee.

And now, let’s turn to another Tory who won’t listen to anything but the voices in his head – Iain Pretentious Smith.

He has responded to calls from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, along with no less than 43 other Anglican Bishops, to reconsider benefit changes that will push an estimated 200,000 children into poverty. These are figures from The Children’s Society, which is a charity that deals with issues affecting deprived children every single day of its existence and should therefore, reasonably, know.

The letter states that the decision to increase financial support for families by no more than one per cent per year for the next three years, regardless of the rate of inflation, “will have a deeply disproportionate impact on families with children, pushing 200,000 children into poverty. A third of all households will be affected by the Bill, but nearly nine out of 10 families with children will be hit.

“These are children and families from all walks of life. The Children’s Society calculates that a single parent with two children, working on an average wage as a nurse would lose £424 a year by 2015. A couple with three children and one earner, on an average wage as a corporal in the British Army, would lose £552 a year by 2015.

“However, the change will hit the poorest the hardest. About 60 per cent of the savings from the uprating cap will come from the poorest third of households. Only three per cent will come from the wealthiest third.”
Only three per cent from the wealthiest households? It seems we’ve discovered why this plan is so attractive to the Party of the Rich.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby – who has yet to be enthroned – added: “As a civilised society, we have a duty to support those among us who are vulnerable and in need. When times are hard, that duty should be felt more than ever, not disappear or diminish.

“It is essential that we have a welfare system that responds to need and recognises the rising costs of food, fuel and housing.” (Labour Party – and especially Liam Byrne – please note).

It was pleasing to see these words from the new Archbishop, who is clearly unafraid to enter political debates, despite the undue flack received by the former Archbishop, Dr Rowan Williams. The Church should speak up to protect those in society whose voice is not strong.

Of course Smith – a Catholic whose behaviour should have had him excommunicated from his own faith – was having none of it.

“I don’t agree that the way to get children out of poverty is to simply keep transferring more and more money to keep them out of work,” he said, possibly revealing a little more than he intended. It seems Mr Smith thinks that, rather than receiving benefits to support them, poor children should be sent out to work. Is he advocating a return to the despicable conditions of the 19th century, in which children were sent up chimneys to clean them?

Don’t put it past him – look what else he had to say!

He said this: “We are doing the right thing in bringing in the benefit cap. For the first time ever, people on low and average earnings will realise at last that those on benefits will not be able to be paid more in taxes than they themselves earn.”

Exactly. Those on low and average earnings will realise that, if they get the sack, they will not be able to cover their current outgoings, meagre though they may be.

The intention behind the benefit cap is – as Vox Political has stated in the past – to silence those on the lowest wages from seeking any improvement in their pay and conditions, and even stop them from complaining if their bosses decide to cut those things.

It is a wholesale – and despicable – betrayal of the vast majority of the British people.

Don’t you forget it.

*He might as well be saying that; it’s what his statements indicate.

Vox Political

Cameron's Bullingdon Club 'burn £50 notes in front of beggars'

Bullingdon Club initiation ceremony claim: New members of David Cameron's old club 'burn £50 note in front of beggar'

 

 

A friend of one of the exclusive club’s super-wealthy members revealed the sick prank to an Oxford student newspaper

 

Ex-member: David Cameron



New members of David Cameron’s old Bullingdon Club have to burn a £50 note in front of a beggar as part of an “initiation ceremony”, it has been claimed.

A friend of one of the exclusive club’s super-wealthy members revealed the sick prank to an Oxford student newspaper.

It was immediately condemned last night by Labour MP Ian Mearns.

He said: “This kind of thing takes us back to the loads-of-money days under the last Tory government.

“Then it wasn’t just about having cash – you had to rub it in the faces of those who didn’t. It’s distasteful and disgusting.”

The Bullingdon revelations came as figures showed a rise in those sleeping rough.

One night in autumn last year councils found 2,309 out on the streets compared to 2,181 in 2011.

The boozy Bullingdon club is infamous for trashing Oxford restaurants and its other former members include Chancellor George Osborne and London Mayor Boris Johnson.

Earlier this month a Bullingdon member is alleged to have set off fireworks in a club.

MIRROR

Letter from Iain Duncan Smith:ATOS/DWP are doing a great job

DPAC's Website goes down - shortly after publishing a letter from Iain Duncan Smith

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Internet Explorer is unable to update this password-protected feed.

Update your username and password

DPAC

Update 08 March 2013

http://www.dpac.uk.net/2013/03/letter-from-iain-duncan-smithatosdwp-are-doing-a-great-job/

Error 404 - Not Found

Sorry, the page that you are looking for does not exist.

===========================================================

05 March 2013, 23:17:26

Letter from Iain Duncan Smith:ATOS/DWP are doing a great job

05 March 2013, 23:17:26 | admin2

We’ve been passed a letter from Iain Duncan Smith (IDS) to an individual’s local MP.  That individual has asked us to publish the letter because surprise, surprise IDS  is defending Atos and says they are doing a great job- we know that the reality is very different. We know the misery and distress that Atos is causing and we know that [...]

Comments (0)

This is what ESA/WCA means for sick and disabled people [Ekklesia]

As part of a new campaign to highlight the highly damaging impact of the government's welfare changes, particularly in relation to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), activist Sue Marsh (http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/) launched #ESAendgame, the first of a range of mobilising activities, on Twitter and on her web page yesterday (6 March 2013).

The aim is to get people talking about the human impact of ESA, and of the WCA (Work Capability Assessment) overseen by the DWP and implemented by ATOS and others, which is what someone has to go through to qualify for ESA.

We have excerpted some of the comments and examples people tweeted below. They make harrowing reading. There are a few news and audio links included. These are the stories and experiences which politicians, civil servants, policy makers and media operatives need to see in order to understand the massive damage being occasioned by the government's assault on welfare.

Ekklesia believes that social, welfare and benefits policy should be shaped by human determinants, by an economics of sharing rather than hoarding, and above all by the expertise, experience and perspective of those living at the sharp-end - not by decision-makers living in remote comfort, protected by spin-doctors.


Here is what #ESAendgame revealed:

"The DWP sends very poorly terminally ill people like me into the Work Related Activity Group - we're not 'fit for work' any time soon, we're dying."

"Elaine's body was found in a drain. The Inquest heard she was worried about a benefit entitlement meeting."
"My terminal friend had to explain 'how terminal?' was her terminal cancer to the JSA office. She died four months later."

"If you became ill or disabled would you want to live in constant fear of becoming destitute?"

"A Freedom of Information document from the DWP has revealed that rather than an average of 32 deaths per week as a result of Welfare Reform that figure has now risen to an average of 73 deaths per week." http://welfarenewsservice.com/nothing-short-of-barbaric/

"I live in a crip's body, wracked with pain, high on drugs to dull pain receptors, have restricted movement but brain works fine."

"I was pushed into oncoming traffic whilst waiting at traffic lights in my wheelchair followed by shouts of 'scrounging scum'."

"Quote from ATOS Work Capability Assessment: 'And how long have you had Down’s Syndrome?'"

"According to the DWP's own research, 92 per cent of UK businesses will not consider employing a blind person. WCA [is] oblivious to this fact."

"Far from 'helping people back to work' the truth regarding ESA is [that] it causes additional suffering and makes sick people sicker."

"The DWP, with no medical experience, can declare you fit for work despite evidence from professionals. This is just wrong."

"Now too old for ESA, but hear about too many people with terminal cancer being told they should be in work."

"Fury as benefits bullies DWP force 50,000 disabled Scots to go back to work." tinyurl.com/b7fqneb

"I object to having my illness tested by a points scoring system. If doctors did this, hospitals would be virtually empty."

"New rules allow assessors to completely disregard symptoms."

"The One Year Time Limit totally undermines any contributory principle."

"Is it fair that ill/disabled have to justify said illness to someone who knows nothing about it? Justify it?"

"My WCA assessment stated I couldn't work. DWP overturned it and placed me in a WRAG. Took a year to overturn at tribunal."

"Claimants could be left without any income replacement benefit at all when challenging a decision that they are fit for work, the government has confirmed."

"My fight for my ESA is temporarily over, many more are still fighting."

"Why should someone who has to spend the bulk of their energy on dealing with pain, fatigue, and staying alive be forced to work?"

"Most people's impairments can be accommodated in the right job with the right support - but those jobs are few and far between."

"ESA is finding people fit for the dole queue, not fit for any kind of realistic and suitable employment."

"The worst thing about ESA is the constant reassessment of people who won't get better."

"The tragedy of Alice: How the Work Capability Assessment costs lives - its impact on people with mental health problems is more serious than ATOS have acknowledged." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/03/tragedy-alice

"One day I was a valued member of society, the next day I was a dirty, filthy scrounger who bankrupted the UK."

"All the people I tweeted about who died were real and their stories can be found here." http://t.co/ZRsZzVlkoO [*.PDF file]

"Seems saying I have frequent co-morbid tendencies at my ESA WCA means I'm OK to work. Who knew?"

"Full of rage for the contempt in which people are held. Human beings. Full of fear for the future when I'll need to apply."

"A man who doused himself with petrol and tried to set himself alight in a job centre after a dispute over benefits has been jailed for 20 months."

"April 2013 sees the end of contribution-based ESA. All claims will only last for a year even if you have paid 40+ years of National Insurance (NI)."

"ATOS incompetence: 'When did you catch autism?'"

"The claimant has no right to know the qualifications of the WCA assessors. You could have a physio assessing autism."

"One ATOS [assessor] was described, by my brief at my tribunal hearing, as 'certifying a chair fit for work'. Everyone knew him."

"I'd like to know how qualified these ESA 'advisors' actually are. More visibility, please."

"A person whose cousin was on disability benefit, dying of liver failure: the DWP stopped her benefit and she had to appeal against it, enduring eight weeks of 'worry, hopelessness and grief' before dying two days before her family received notification that her appeal had been granted."

"One of the most stressful events in life, is moving home - the government's bedroom tax is deliberately inflicting this on disabled."

"A man 63 dies of kidney failure and starvation after being cut off benefits and declared 'fit for work'."
"Please tell me, Government, what have I done to deserve this abuse and suffering from you?"

"The bullying tactics of DWP and ATOS." http://alonewewhisper.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/the-bullying-tactics-of-dwp...

"Why are we spending millions of pounds finding sick people fit for jobs that don't exist?"

"ATOS: The world's silliest interview." http://loopys-rollingwiththepunches.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/esa-sos-world...

"Worst thing about ESA is [that] they ignore long-term medical knowledge about people in favour of a 10-minute ATOS interview."

"Simon Hickmans ATOS assessment. This is how they treat people with mental health problems." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG9a22hbrcY

"This is very much like my assessment, but I felt couldn't walk out and I had no-one with me or any support of any kind, so I got trampled over by ATOS and got zero points."

"Government policy on disability assessment doesn't work and is wasting my taxes, and making the lives of the disabled even harder."

"We hope that you'll never understand what the fear of the brown envelope means, but just in case please sign the WOW petition: http://wowpetition.com/

------

Ekklesia is honoured and pleased to be working with disability researchers and campaigners in helping to link analysis with advocacy, political lobbying and media awareness-building around welfare, benefits and disability policy.

See also:

* Sue Marsh's blog on Ekklesia: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/suemarsh
* Disability issues on Ekklesia: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/disability
* Truth and lies about poverty, benefits and welfare: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/18086
* Thousands of disabled and sick people will be hit by new ESA/WCA changes: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/17812

Source

Why are more middle-aged men turning to suicide?

This Guardian Video sensitively looks at the issue of suicide as National Statistics suggest that the number of middle-aged men killing themselves is rising with the marked increase of unemployment and financial problems.

Why are more middle-aged men turning to suicide?

Recent figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that the number of middle-aged men killing themselves is rising.

The number of suicides among women has fallen over the past 30 years, but the figure for men has not dropped at the same rate.

Men in the 30 - 45 age bracket are most likely to turn to suicide, but since 2007 there has been an marked increase in the number of men in the 45 - 55 age group who are taking their own lives, and unlike other groups this has not dropped since.

What is causing this and what can be done to tackle it?

Tim Samuels reports for BBC Newsnight.

If you, or someone you know, has been affected by the issues raised in this report on suicide, click here to find details of organisations that can help.

Source; Guardian