Britain is flush with cash - we just have to take it

The gap between the income and wealth of the super-rich and the rest of us in Britain has been growing for the past 30 years.

It is now wider than ever, thanks to the coalition putting the squeeze on working people and the poor while at the same time giving tax cuts to millionaires and big business.

We have paid, and continue to pay, a high price for this in the past few years in terms of jobs, pay and living standards.

Over two and a half million people are out of work - 900,000 more than at the start of the recession - and an average of five people are chasing every job vacancy.

Almost three million more - 10 per cent of the working population - are underemployed in enforced part-time, casual, fixed-term and zero-hours contract jobs.

The wages of millions more have been frozen or cut, and the pay rises that do exist average only 1 per cent a year - roughly a third of inflation.

Real, after-inflation wages are 7.5 per cent lower than at the the start of the recession, according to the TUC, pushing people's living standards to their lowest level in a decade.

Oxfam puts the number of British people living in poverty at 13.5 million, with the number of children in absolute poverty soaring by 300,000 in the past year to 2.6 million.

This has driven people in need to take out 8 million new loans with payday lenders in the past year including notorious predator Wonga, which charges interest rates of up to 5,853 per cent a year.

Over half a million families a year are having to use charity food banks to keep body and soul together.

But the rich face no such problems and their wealth continues to increase, breaking all pre-recession records.
Britain, the world's seventh-richest country, now has the fourth-highest number of millionaires and billionaires, according to the Boston Consulting Group's most recent global wealth report.

The Royal Bank of Canada and Cap Gemini say the number of Britain's millionaires increased by 5.4 per cent to 465,000 in the past year.

And according to the Sunday Times Rich List the wealth of the richest 1,000 people in the country increased by 8 per cent in 2012 to a record £450 billion - equivalent to the annual earnings of two-thirds of the entire British workforce, and to the total amount of tax collected annually by HM Revenue and Customs.

The number of taxpayers paid more than £1 million a year has increased from 10,000 to a record 18,000 in the past two years, with a high proportion of them in a banking industry which did more than anybody else to push the country into recession five years ago.

FTSE 100 chief executives have also been raking it in, with a 10 per cent increase last year taking their earnings to an average of £4.25m, according to a recent survey by Manifest and MM&K.

That's over £11,500 a day and is 185 times the earnings of the average British worker.

Much of this obscene wealth is down to industrial-scale tax avoidance and evasion by the super-rich and big business.

Yet despite this taxes for high earners and companies are being cut, more and more services are being outsourced to the private sector, wages are being driven down and employment rights are being reduced - all to make the rich even richer at the expense of the rest of us.

This tale of two nations gives the lie to coalition assertions that we are all in it together and that those with the broadest shoulders are making the greatest contribution to reducing government debt.

It also undermines the claim that there is no alternative to austerity, to cutting back what Cameron calls "our bloated welfare state."

There is no shortage of money in Britain, but it is mainly in the hands of a selfish and super-rich elite who are happy to make the rest of us pay for the fallout from recession while they continue to increase their wealth as if the recession had never happened.

If we allow this to continue they will continue to drive down living standards, undermine the welfare state and wreck the NHS, education, the benefits system, pensions and local services - all of which will take decades to repair.

We must step up our resistance to their attacks, refuse to participate in attempts to scapegoat benefit claimants, immigrants and others, and direct our anger at the coalition, the fat cats and big business who are ripping us off and enriching themselves at our expense.

Morning Star 

Call for NGOs and sick and disabled individuals willing to act as "victim" in a UN complaint or inquiry

I need to hear from NGOs and sick and disabled individuals willing to act as "victim" in a UN complaint or inquiry

Please circulate this widely in Britain.

I recently contacted a human rights solicitor at Leigh Day regarding the submission of a United Nations complaint (UNCRPD) or inquiry into Britain's draconian welfare reform policies. The solicitor has expressed interest. I need to hear from NGOs and sick and disabled individuals willing to act as "victim" in the UN complaint or inquiry.

For further information, please see http://www.twitlonger.com/show/lbeqbu http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rkmam4 http://mydisabilitystudiesblackboard.blogspot.ca/2013/03/the-jobcentre-sanctions-scandal-in.html

I am especially interested in hearing from individuals (disabled and non-disabled) who have been unjustly sanctioned by Jobcentre and/or the DWP.

Please contact: Samuel Miller at disabilityinliterature@gmail.com

--
Samuel Miller

http://independent.academia.edu/SamuelMiller
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/letter-to-the-icc-at-the-hague-re-mistreatment-of-the-disabled-and-sick
http://mikesivier.wordpress.com//?s=Samuel+Miller&search=Go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnHBfW0_u5A&feature=youtu.be
E-Mail: disabilityinliterature@gmail.com
Blog: Hephaestus: Disability Studies
http://illnessandcivilization.blogspot.com/
Blog: My Disability Studies Blackboard
http://mydisabilitystudiesblackboard.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/Hephaestus7
(Montreal, Canada)

Muscular dystrophy man told he must move out of his Wisbech home and into care home to save NHS money

 
Lee Thorne, muscular dystrophy sufferer is appealing against a decision for him to be in a care home and not in his bungalow. Left: Christine Morgan, Lee Thorne and Wendy Trowler.

A 45 YEAR old man with muscular dystrophy is appealing against a decision by NHS officials which will force him to move out of his Wisbech bungalow and spend the rest of his life in a care home in Peterborough.

Lee Thorne, muscular dystrophy sufferer is appealing against a decision for him to be in a care home and not in his bungalow

 

Lee Thorne, who has been in his purpose built bungalow for 13 years, says the decision would destroy his quality of life.

Mr Thorne, who enjoys days out to London, trips to the coast, concerts and museum visits with friends or carers, says being in a home would mean a future of “existing” instead of living his days to the full.

“My dignity has not been taken into account. This has been forced on me. I just want to live my own quiet life in the comfort of my own home,” said Mr Thorney of Victoria Road, who this week was allowed back to his bungalow for one day for the first time in 10 months.

Mr Thorne, who was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy at the age of six, lived independently with the help of social care until suffering a respiratory failure in July 2012.

Lee Thorne, muscular dystrophy sufferer is appealing against a decision for him to be in a care home and not in his bungalow

 

He was rushed to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital at King’s Lynn where he had a tracheostomy tube fitted to help with his breathing.

He suffered a chest infection and at the end of August was moved to Papworth Hospital where he remained until being taken to the care home in January 2013.

Having the tube fitted means he cannot legally organise his own care and has been told by the NHS continuing care package team he needs two carers 24 hours a day, seven days a week

Living in the care home would cost £1800 per week. Staying in his bungalow with two 24/7 carers would cost £5,500 per week.

Mr Thorne said: “I only need two carers in the morning and night time to help me in and out of bed.
“The rest of the time one carer is enough, so the amount quoted is too high.”

His friends Christine Morgan and Wendy Trower are desperate for him to stay in his own home.

Ms Trower said: “They told Lee he would only be in the care home temporarily yet after four months they say he has to stay for good.

“Since being in the care home he hasn’t left his room.”

Ms Morgan added: “He loves his life at home and has everything he needs around him. The decision is totally wrong. ”

By Kath Sansom
Saturday, May 4, 2013
8:58 AM

Source

‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ – hyperbole?

The Salvation army has recently received flak for its involvement with forced labour and the assertion that appears on their web site:  ”The Salvation Army’s key purposes: emancipation through employment“, thus echoing the sign that appeared on the gates of Nazi forced labour, later extermination,  camps “ Arbeit Macht Frei” (“labour makes you free“).

Both Protestant and Catholic Churches in Germany have apologized for the use of forced labour supplied by the Nazi’s and it is regrettable that the SA in the UK is echoing the secular SA (Brown Shirts) of the Nazi era in being involved with forced labour.  Coincidences are just that – coincidences – however, it recalls how the current government introduced forced work for disabled people on United Nations’ International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

Belatedly my attention was drawn to an astonishing article that appeared last year in the Daily Mail which was pulled very quickly after it appeared on Twitter. If you don’t believe in God then perhaps  you might find belief in a round about way by concluding that there is indeed a devil hovering over these isles. Domique Jackson wrote:

“The German slogan ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ is somewhat tainted by its connection with Nazi concentration camps, but its essential message, ‘work sets you free’ still has something serious to commend it.

There is dignity to be gained from any job, no matter how menial, and for young people at the start of their careers, there are valuable lessons to be learned from any form of employment, whether that is on the factory floor, on a supermarket till or in the contemporary hard labour camp of a merchant bank or law office.”

  Coincidentally it was printed on Independence Day in the USA, the country which introduced modern Workfare, during the Clinton administration, and which has been copied by several other countries including our own.

Welfare Sorrows

Yesterday's Labour Workfare Masssacre

Reblogged from Diary of a Benefit Scrounger

 

This morning, like the night after Agincourt, lefties like me scan the bloody, burnt out social media #workfare battlefield in the hope of finding twitching Labour corpses. There are none. Like the French 600 years before, a few generals at the top of the pile made the fateful decision to crush the weak and exhausted. Like the French, they were shown exactly why that's often not a very good idea at all. 

In the three years since Labour have been in opposition, nothing has described their fate better than the welfare debate. With minds stuck in an ideology forged around a gleaming new millennium, welfare was a comforting Blairite hawk to offset the freer doves of education, international aid and health. 

Tough on povety, tough on the causes of poverty. It suited Purnell, and Murphy and Cooper as they forged their credentials as "centrists" and who knows? Future leaders? 

So the argument goes : "It's a no brainer. The public think everyone on welfare is scrounging. (Except them) The tougher we are on welfare, the more people in the "Middle" and the "Shires" and the "City" breathe easy at night. (As long as it's not pensioners and it doesn't affect them.) Combining a little social justice elsewhere, with a good dose of judgement and steel in welfare = the chance of a majority. 75% of the public support workfare. Therefore, supporting the government on this is a chance to show we are still tough on poverty, tough on the causes of poverty. The Daily Mail fall gasping at our feet, they raise a glass in the gentleman's clubs, and no-one will listen to the screams of the anguished or weak, well, because they're anguished and weak."

Some around the shadow cabinet now look uncomfortable, shift in their seats. This is at least progress. Some mention the change in the welfare narrative lately. Opinion polls shifting, disability becoming toxic for the Tories, the increased media interest and above all, that behemoth of opinion formers - social media. But the hawks give the doves a little slap about and logic prevails. 75% of everyone or about 1% of the active, gobby probably-gave-up-on-us-anyway-leftie-activist-Face-Tweeps??? 

As has happened so often before, but had been happening less lately, the hawks won the welfare Agincourt, and they took to the commons. 

We on Twitter and Facebook steeled ourselves. Defeat had been heavily trailed on the blogs and had met with the grim opposition of the archer who knows he may be amongst small and ragged numbers, but he has all the arrows and the mighty have none. 

And so it proved. If the Daily Mail or the BBC even noticed Labour's unprincipled stand yesterday, designed to get them picked for the election team, there is little evidence today on a quick dodge of budget fever. 

But on Social Media? 

Oh Agincourt,

"Those few, those happy few those band of brothers. 

For those yesterday who shed their blood may have been a brother. 

Be he ne'er so vile, election day may have gentled his condition and Englishmen abed may have held their front doors wide as any speaks, that canvassed late, upon election day!!!"

For the return of precisely zero centre ground, floating voting, Mail readers, Labour managed to enrage and alienate 10s of 1000s of active, passionate, left of centre, engaged, knowledgeable, informed, opinion formers who are read by journalists and opposition alike - not to mention their own families and friends. 

Life has changed since 2000. Politics has changed. The economy has changed beyond all recognition. Living standards have fallen. Corruption seems to stalk everywhere now that gossamer veneer of "success" has floated away. 

But most of all, "media" has changed. Numbers of papers sold are plummeting, news figures freefall by their side. 

And every day, social media takes over. Sure, not the majority, but the vanguard. And they are the ones who care and think and devise and solve and organise. Just like any world paradigm change, it is the few who lead you to safety not the many. 

Every time Labour remembers that, they are rewarded with just a little touch of Harry in the night - Murdoch and Leveson, Gas giants and Loan sharks their names in our mouths bitterly remembered. 

We appreciate their company, there in the breach. 

But every time they take what they know is the wrong decision on principle, the response is swift and horrific. 

I won't pain myself more by sifting through the "I'll never vote Labour again" tweets or sifting through the debris of torn up membership cards and broken hearts. 

But Labour squandered so much more yesterday on a battle they could never win, and all the while they go on frittering away principles and viable voters on the wind of a cruel popularity it cannot win, our cause be not just.

 

 

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

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

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

The bad guys are terrified of exposure

What do I believe is happening? A vicious world dictatorship is forming with increasing speed and the UK establishment and government is a major part of the malevolent force helping to create it. A major part of the driving force is the corrupt, fraudulent international banking cartels.

On the path to the dictatorship, the most dangerous agenda is that of violence on the streets. And that is precisely what our government and fraudulent establishment want. They are attempting to manifest violence with increasing urgency. If succesful it will be followed by a massive clampdown by force on individual and public freedoms. To stop their plans for violence we need all good people to work together. Our key weapons are common sense and exposure of the malevolent agenda and its purpetrators. It does not matter if you are black, white, Asian, East European, Christian, Muslim, green, yellow or white. If you now live in UK, we are all in the same immediate danger. 

And no that does not mean we can have totally free uncontrolled national borders. That idea defies common sense - at least until we have governments of truth, integrity, honesty and common sense.

The controlling networks for the emerging British dictatorship ultimately rely on embedded paedophile networks. The paedophiles are not dirty old men on the street but 'respected' people, both men and women, at high levels of position and power. These people must be stopped. They are perverted, powerful and very dangerous.

If we want to stop the dictatorship, and we must, we have to understand how it thinks, plans and acts, and we have to take action. For some people, sitting at home researching is all they can do, and we are grateful for their efforts. Keep doing it. Other people can be more proactive and get out and about to warn people, spread the word, organise and act. Doing that already? Keep doing it. We are now at the point where we have to act - sitting and watching is not an option. Not if our children are to have a future they can enjoy.

What makes me tick? I woke up to realise that much of what I learned and believed in was false. I now understand that the Britain of which I was once proud, is rotten and controlled by a rotten criminal government and establishment elite. Even our churches and religions have been corrupted. I felt particularly betrayed, having 'served' my Queen and Country as a Naval Officer fro 21 years. Much of it in a 'tin box'.  (TAP = submarine)

Rather than sit and watch the action I decided to do something, and the first step was to tell the truth about what I knew - to speak out. What an adventure it has been and what great new friends I have met.

Many people get very nervous when they first wake up. Who is listening, what are they doing, are my emails are being monitored, am I being watched, will they get me? - it's scary. These fears and feelings are exactly what the other side want us to have, as then they can further suppress, depress and control us.

The good news is that action conquers fear. I'll say that again "ACTION CONQUERS FEAR". Try it, but use common sense. Don't jump in the deep end without understanding and calculated planning. Think carefully and decide what you can do and in an area you feel comfortable. Then do it. No matter how small. And tell others about your successes. You will gain new friends. Good people. All colours, shapes and sizes. The word will spread, the good networks will grow, and so will the exposure.
Why exposure? Because the bad guys are terrified, absolutely terrified of exposure. That their dirty deeds will be brought into the light. It does not matter what position or powers they hold, they are all terrified of exposure. Try it. Expose one of the bad guys in your area. Use only truth and factual evidence and you may be surprised at the effect. Anger, then fear of you - the position is reversed. You have taken the first step to winning. Enough of us winning means the battle is won. 'Nuff said. Go to it Forum fellows.

Kind Regards
Brian Gerrish

The Tap

When big business dabbles with welfare; a cautionary tale

“Jack Gilligan, who was the Democratic governor of Ohio… said ‘You know there will never be democracy in America when big business can buy both parties and expect a pay-off, whichever one wins. And you know, a touch of that may possibly have spread in this direction.” Tony Benn.

I have been researching the relationship between US insurance giant (and lawbreaker) Unum and successive UK governments - Conservative, New Labour and Coalition – and the minimal research I have managed so far tells me that, if there’s one thing the Labour Party needs to do to ensure its electability in 2015, that thing is the expulsion of Unum and all private insurance firms, their subsidiaries, partner companies, and people who have worked with or for them, from any position of influence. Kick them right out!

Any government that fraternises with these vampires puts corporate profits above the well-being of its citizens. That is clear from what I have read. I want to go into certain aspects in detail, but before that, you deserve to know the details, so I’ve written a little story for you:

Once upon a time, a big insurance company had a little problem. It had been making money hand-over-fist by investing people’s premiums in high-interest portfolios, but interest rates were falling and new kinds of ‘subjective illness’ had arisen, for which medical science was not prepared – ‘chronic pain’, ‘chronic fatigue syndrome’, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, Lyme disease.

The solution devised by the bosses was to reduce the number of successful claims it paid out, by aggressively disputing whether the claimant was ill. So the company skewed its medical examinations to its own favour by questioning illnesses that were “self-reported”, labelling some disabling conditions as “psychological”, and playing up the “subjective” nature of “mental” and “nervous” claims.

“Sickness is temporary,” they said. “Illness is a behaviour – all the things that people say and do that express and communicate their feelings of being unwell. The degree of this behaviour is dependent on the attitudes and beliefs of the individual, as well as the social context and culture. Illness is a personal choice.” In other words: “It’s all in the mind; these people are fit to work”.

Around the same time, a small country had a big problem with people claiming out-of-work benefit because they were ill. This was not a problem because they were lying about being ill – fraud amounted to less than one per cent of claims. Nor was it a problem because too many people were claiming – benefit levels were among the lowest of any countries nearby, and claims were on a par with those other countries.

No, the problem was that the man running the system, whose name was Peter**, wanted to make money out of it.

So he hired the boss of the big insurance company, whose name was John***, and asked him to help out. John said, “We have a great test that you can use! Instead of asking whether someone can do their job, you assess their general capacity to work, with a series of – we call them – descriptors. One could say the person ‘Is unable to cope with changes in the daily routine’, ‘Is frightened to go out alone’. Then the results get passed on to different people – adjudication officers – who judge whether they deserve your benefit. But the clever bit is that these officers aren’t doctors – the customer might be saying they’re sick but medical evidence has nothing to do with what the test is about! We’ll train your adjudicators – for a price. We’ve even got a sexy name for the test: It’s bollocks!”*

Off went Peter to try it and, lo and behold! The rise in claimants came to a halt, as if by magic. But it wasn’t magic. It was bollocks.

Meanwhile, the insurance company was making out like a bandit. Not only was it now at the heart of the small country’s government, it was able to make money from the claimants as well. Before the new rules came into effect, it advertised for customers, saying the new system meant “if you fall ill and have to rely on state incapacity benefit, you could be in serious trouble!”

Before long, the big insurance company found it was even bigger, with a quarter of all its post-tax income being paid by people in the small country.

Meanwhile, back at home, people had started to complain about the big company. It was a big, NASTY company, they said, because it had forced them to accept less when they claimed than their policies offered. The government there found that the big company had relied too much on in-house professionals; had constructed doctors’ or examination reports unfairly, for its own benefit; had failed to evaluate claimants’ conditions in their totality; and had placed an inordinate burden on claimants to justify why they should receive the benefits for which they had paid. Many claims were found to need re-examination.

That did not make a scrap of difference to the people running the sickness benefit system in the small country that had asked for the big nasty insurance company’s help. An election had happened and Peter had been asked to leave, but the new people in charge, Frank**** and Tony*****, were keen to capitalise on what had gone before and transform their welfare system into a new marketplace – a source of revenue, profitability and economic growth.

With help from the big nasty insurance company, they decided that the solution was not to cure the sick – or even to prevent their sickness in the first place – but to convince them that work is therapeutic, aids recovery and is the best form of rehabilitation. In other words, bollocks*. This way, with the help of the big nasty company’s bollocks* tests and adjudicators who based their decisions on bollocks*, they could say the problem was with the person who had the illness. Their behaviour and beliefs became the focus of the government’s moral judgement and action. If they did not change their ways, then sanctions would be used as a “motivational tool” – and people would be starved back into work.

And that, dear child, has continued to this very day! People claiming sickness or disability benefits in the small country, which is called the United Kingdom, have to take a test in which medical evidence plays a tiny role, run by people who are not doctors and judged by people who are not doctors. Many of these decisions have been found to be unfair, and have often been found to have failed to evaluate claimants’ conditions in their totality – which is why people with terminal cancer have been found fit for work. Many claims have been found to need re-examination.

You can see the hand of the big nasty insurance company at work, can’t you!

That is because the big nasty insurance company, which is called Unum, has been at the heart of the small country’s government ever since it was first invited in. And they intend to live happily ever after, at the public’s expense.

“A lot of people think that disabled people don’t have sex, but this is not true, because the government are screwing us hard.” Francesca Martinez, The News Quiz, BBC Radio 4, January 11, 2013.

*I should apologise for the fault in my computer. Every time I try to type – I’ll just cut and paste it in here – “the biopsychosocial model” or any combination of those words, it comes out “bollocks”. Sorry!

**Peter Lilley
***John LoCascio
****Frank Field
*****Tony Blair


Vox Political

ATOS Welfare Debate January 17th 2013

THE ATOS HEALTHCARE DEBATE

A briefing for the HOC debate to be held on 17th January 2013

CONSIDER:

Atos Healthcare, Unum Insurance, a Knighthood, a bogus assessment system copied from the US insurance industry and a very lucrative IT contract for the Olympic Games:

Executive Summary:

The Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) are responsible for the disability benefits paid to chronically sick and/or disabled adults considered to be too ill or disabled to seek employment.

“Expenditure on disability payments has risen from the equivalent of £4.7 billion in 1972/73 to £14.0 billion in 2010/11.

The number of claimants on invalidity and sickness benefits has risen from 1 million to 2.4 million. Since the 1990s the number of new Incapacity Benefit (IB) claims has remained relatively static. However, the number of new claims exceeds the number of people leaving to return to work, leading to a net increase.

The DWP argues that people are becoming “trapped” on benefits, which is bad for claimants’ economic, mental, physical and social well-being.

Successive UK governments have been planning a reform of the welfare state since 1992. In the past, chronically sick and/or disabled people were awarded Incapacity Benefit (IB), often for life, without the need for regular medical reassessment. This was due to their condition being permanent and was allocated using General Practitioners (GP) as the medical expert opinion used to award the benefit.

The government have now introduced the Employment Support Allowance (ESA) to replace IB.

To claim or to retain this benefit, claimants are required not only to endure the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), as exclusively conducted by Atos Healthcare (AH), but are required to have repeated WCA tests, often for conditions that are permanent.

This has removed financial security from the disabled community and has produced
disturbing evidence of a seriously flawed assessment system. The under qualified DWP Decision Makers, by their own admission, fail to comprehend detailed medical terminology as provided in medical evidence offered by GPs and Consultants. Atos Healthcare are also the exclusive contractor used to assess disabled claimants for access to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) which is not dependent upon employment.

1. ATOS ORIGIN are an IT corporate giant with no previous experience in healthcare prior to being awarded the exclusive government contract for the ‘medical assessment’ of all recipients of long term sickness benefit, disability benefit and War Pensions – which is NOT a benefit.

2. The IT company formed ATOS ORIGIN MEDICAL SERVICES, more commonly known as ATOS HEALTHCARE (AH), and the exclusive government contract with AH costs the Treasury a minimum of £110million per annum.

3. The ‘medical assessment’ as conducted by AH is known as the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). The WCA, as introduced by the previous Labour government, consists of a formal face-to-face interview with an AH staff member to provide answers to a computer questionnaire at assessment centres across the UK. Most assessment centres are without local disability parking facilities and many fail to provide disability access to the building. It remains unclear how wheelchair users are expected to access a building that fails to provide wheelchair access.

4. Unum Insurance – previously known as Unum Provident Insurance are a US corporate insurance giant specialising in disability insurance and have a diabolical reputation. Unum Insurance (UNUM) use the highly discredited Bio-Psycho-Social (BPS) model of disability assessment and have 25 million clients in the US. Appointed as ‘government advisers’, UNUM are identified as the 2nd worst insurance company in the USA.

5. AH use the same highly discredited BPS model of disability assessment, hence the many and growing numbers of genuine chronically sick and/or disabled people who fail the WCA assessment. Benefit is removed causing needless anxiety, distress and financial hardship.

(1)  Assessing Capacity for Work: Houses of Parliament, Parliamentary Office of Science Technology POSTNOTE 413  July 2012:
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-413.pdf

(2)  Welfare Reform – Redress for the disabled:
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2012/09/08/dwpunumatos-scandal-welfare-reform-redress-for-disabled-people-report-by-mo-stewart-wraf-rtd/

(3)  The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America – the American Association for JUSTICE:
http://www.justice.org/docs/TenWorstInsuranceCompanies.pdf

6. Due to the WCA causing such anxiety and distress to those who must deal with a chronic health condition and/or a permanent, profound disability, a multitude of disability support groups have been established online. Black Triangle, Spartacus, Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), DLA Help Group and the Atos Victims Support Group are the principal groups, but there are many others. The UK Disabled People’s Council are gaining influence. Spartacus is the most influential and have produced a number of distinguished and detailed research reports. The support groups have welcomed and published my previous research reports.

7. Professor Sir Mansel Aylward recently received a Knighthood for “services to disability assessment”. This has caused outrage amongst disability support group members. The Professor was the SMO at DSS London from ’88-’90, the Director of medical policy at the Benefits Agency from ’91-95 and DWP (formerly DSS) Chief Medical Officer (CMO) from ’95-2005.  He was in post when UNUM were invited to be ‘government advisers,’ despite UNUM having a notorious reputation for ‘disability denial practice’ in the US over many years.  It was Professor Aylward who supported the transformation to the DWP ‘medical assessment’ for all claimants of long term sickness benefit, using the highly discredited BPS model of assessment.

8. The BPS model of disability: The Bio-Psycho-Social(BPS) model of disability assessment has no medical credibility and is the invention of the insurance industry.(5) The highly discredited BPS model of disability is actively promoted by Aylward, who has had a relationship with Unum Insurance for a large part of his career, who stepped down from the DWP to become the Director of the Centre for Psychosocial Research, initially funded by Unum Insurance for 6 years, and who remains a Director of the Health Claims Bureau.

9. Professor Sir Mansel Aylward seems to ‘change his tune’ depending on his audience. When met with activists following a conference last September, the Professor made certain claims, including the fact that the BPS model of disability assessment was “…unsatisfactory because it no longer addresses the real needs of disabled people.” This man has built his career promoting the BPS model and gives lectures around the world yet suddenly claims to have changed his mind.

10. Academic Gill Thorburn had a detailed response to the Professor’s unexpected claims.

11. UNUM Insurance had planned to swamp the UK market with blanket marketing once the British public had been left in no doubt that welfare support was not only being reformed but disintegrated. UNUM began their long awaited mass TV marketing, using the reduced welfare provision to promote Income Protection Insurance.(IPI) This was reported to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) by disability activists and the FSA responded and instructed UNUM to stop the TV adverts as they were deemed to be benefitting from ‘insider knowledge’ having been government advisers on the subject.

12. UNUM stopped the IPI adverts on prime time main TV channels and began advertising their BACK-UP PLAN, on the less popular ITV channels, promoting a system of insurance to be funded by direct payments from wages and as equally discredited in the US as are the IPI policies from this company. It is not known if the FSA also stopped these additional adverts, for a different insurance system, but they have been removed from TV screens.

13. According to a letter from the Manager of the DWP Commercial Management of Medical Services to a claimant, the Atos Healthcare contract has never been audited.

14. Despite claims that the award of the lucrative IT contract for the Olympic Games was following ‘rigorous’ investigation, it was a foregone conclusion that ATOS ORIGIN would be awarded thecontract.

(4) Welfare Reform – Redress for the disabled – Mo Stewart 13.07.2012
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2012/09/08/dwpunumatos-scandal-welfare-reform-redress-for-disabled-people-report-by-mo-stewart-wraf-rtd/

(5)  The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America: the American Association for JUSTICE:
http://www.justice.org/docs/TenWorstInsuranceCompanies.pdf

(6) Prof Sir Mansel Aylward, CB:
http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/a/25041/Mansel+AYLWARD.aspx

(7) A Tale of Two Models:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/jolly/A%20Tale%20of%20two%20Models%20Leeds1.pdf

(8) Memorandum on Disability Insurance:
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosmemodisins.html

(9) UNUM/DWP/ATOS SCANDAL – Transcript of meeting of Prof Aylward with Black Triangle and DPAC:
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2012/09/15/unumdwpatos-scandal-transcript-prof-sir-mansel-aylward-defends-his-record-makes-pledge-whenconfronted-by-black-triangle-and-dpac-at-ifdm2012/

(10) A response to Professor Aylward’s statement to Black Triangle & DPAC, 11th Sept 2012:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32109159/Aylward/ResponseToAylward.pdf

(11) Private Members’ Debate:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=11307&st=10:58:30

(12) Letter from DWP CMMS:
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosletters.html#DWP20100909F – see response to question 103

Source

Banksters and ConDem genocidal policies [Video]

Every week Max Keiser looks at all the scandal behind the financial news headlines.
In this episode, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss austerity sandwiches and ‘fraud multipliers’ in the City of London.
In the second half of the show, Max Keiser talks to Satyajit Das, author of Extreme Money, about MMT or Modern Money Tricks and about whether or not the people of Europe will ever rise up and stop the never-ending bailout of banker crimes.

Suicide training in Job Centres? Cancer patients scrubbing floors? Welcome to Cameron’s Brave New World

By Sonia Poulton
UPDATED: 17:19, 6 March 2012

So, the Welfare Reform Bill - the part that refers to sick and disabled people - limped bruised and bloodied over the finishing line in Parliament last week. The various acts of treachery and betrayal it contained making its final journey into law once it has been granted the Queen's royal assent.

 
It was inevitable, really, and disability campaigners who, for the past two years, have fought feverishly, and quite literally at times from their sickbeds, to oppose it, resigned themselves to the fact that nothing short of a Biblical-type miracle would reverse their fate.

 
However, it is only now that the full implications of what these reforms - or brutal acts of savagery as I prefer to call them - will actually mean to millions of seriously vulnerable people in our country. And it is an ugly realisation.

 
This is how I see it. In the life of most every politician there is one, or several, events that mark out their ‘D’Oh moment. This is not based on severity but on a feeling it should not have happened at all.

Brave New World? David and Samantha Cameron themselves claimed Disability Living Allowance for their child

For examples: Nixon - Watergate. Kennedy - Marilyn. Major - Edwina Currie. Tony Blair - Iraq. You get my point?

 
Well here’s my ‘D’oh moment prediction for David Cameron. He will be remembered as the Prime Minister - without a mandate, remember - who attacked the sick and disabled of our country with a vehemence beyond human comprehension. And when you think that he had a disabled son who tragically passed two years ago, well, then, it beggars belief even more so.
So, to bring the story up to speed.

 
Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair’s Governments set the blueprint of the welfare reforms that David Cameron has just forced through Parliament. And when I say forced I mean the type that requires extraordinary levels of subterfuge and manipulation to shoehorn into place.

 
He ignored panels and focus groups, charities and campaigners and he overturned the Lords' by invoking an archaic law of “financial privilege”, which allows the Commons the last say on money matters.

Such was his unstoppable zeal to push through reforms - contrary to all advice, personal and professional - that you had to wonder if it was a psychological issue driving him on.

Talk to any disabled or sick person right now and there is a word that crops up more than any other, a running thread central to what they are feeling. It is this: fear

Perhaps denied grief at the death of his disabled son. Bereavement affects us on an individual basis and there is no guarantee that it will manifest in logical ways.

 
So these cuts will now become law and, as a nation weeps, the details are sorrowful when applied to reality.

 
Here's an example. Any disabled or sick person who has been given more than six months to live - and is unable to financially support themselves - will be sent out to work. If they refuse, or back out of a scheme, then they will be subject to benefit sanctions.

 
This, it must be noted, is extraordinarily punishing towards disabled people when we consider how DWP boss, Chris Grayling, treats others involved in 'Workfare' type arrangements.

 
Consider, if you will, how he was forced to back-track last week following pressure from campaigners and businesses.  After a summit designed to get more businesses on board the Workfare bus, he announced that he would remove the threat of benefit sanctions for unemployed young people on job seeker allowance who drop out of the scheme.

 
Wow. In what world can young, fit people be given protection that we deny our most vulnerable? That's more suited to an Aldous Huxley script than real life.

 

Next up in the reforms will be an increase in multiple testing of patients, including those with Alzheimer's and Multiple Sclerosis, to see if they are fit for work. They will be tested repeatedly. It will cost a great deal of money to administer and it will wear already sick people to a pulp.

And as for children who dare to be born disabled, well that assistance previously available to them has been wiped out in Cameron's Armageddon on the poor. 

 
Sue Marsh, one of the co-authors of 'Responsible Reform - The Spartacus Report' - which launched a worthy counter-attack to the Coalition's WRB measures said: "We begged for £11 Million to protect profoundly disabled children into adulthood, but nuh-huh."

 
And yet we, as a nation, manage to find millions of pounds to pay Cameron's army of advisers and assessors including the allegedly fraudulent activities of back-to-work company A4E which was set up by the Coalition's 'families czar' Emma Harrison.

 
Could we consider this? If this is really a cost-cutting exercise to fill the billion pound deficit, when is the Coalition going to start from within? The DWP spend over 25 thousand pounds per month on travel, hotels and stationery - surely there is something that could be curbed there rather than taking 20% from disability which, according to their own figures, only has 0.5% of fraud.

 
I'm writing this and I'm struggling to believe it at the same time, which is quite a conflict.

 
With all this insistence of paid employment for the terminally ill (despite the fact that we have almost 3million unemployed) it is no wonder that job centres, up and down the land, have been issued with details on how to handle suicides in their establishments. Something, apparently, they are anticipating rather more of since the WRB was voted in.

 
I think the expression ‘you couldn’t make this up’ is appropriate here.

 
Perhaps the aim is to finish off the sick and disabled sooner rather than later. Well that way, at least, you get to save on the medical bills of our increasingly privatised National Health Service.

 
After all, what use are such people to our society?

There is a notion, false obviously, that disabled and sick people make no contribution and only ‘drain’ the system. What short-sightedness. Such a statement assumes that only paid work has social value.

Legacy: Will Cameron be remembered as the PM who attacked the sick and disabled of our country with a vehemence?

What about other contributions including volunteer work - from charity shops to hospitals and schools? These roles are frequently staffed by disabled people, too.

 
Ironically, a number of disabled people will now be removed from such vital community roles and placed in a Workfare scheme - free labour to private businesses - so that they may mop floors, wash dishes or clean toilets. Ain't life grand?

 
Disabled people, like the majority of people, want to work but they also have to take account of how their illness or disability will affect their working life. Unlike the able-bodied and healthy, they do not know which turn their well-being will take when they wake in the morning. Whether they will be able to physically climb out of bed much less make it to the factory floor.

 
People on disability benefit are not living it up. If only. According to the group Family Action, some families survive on less than two pounds per day. Quite a contrast when you compare it to the Peers in the Lords who receive 300 a day just to show up and then get to enjoy smoked salmon in the tax-payer subsidised cafeteria (cost to the taxpayer is a mere 1.44million a year. bargain). Oh how the other half live.

 
So where will disabled and sick have to turn to now in their greatest hour of need? Well they can forget the Social Fund because that was viciously axed in these reforms, too.

 
For millions of people, a Social Fund loan - yes it was repayable, it wasn't a gift - was the difference between sleeping on a bed or a floor. The MP's who voted to banish this have no understanding of such destitution and poverty. Not while they are able to subsidise the purchase of their country mansions with their parliamentary expenses.

 

There are those who openly mock the disabled: Ricky Gervais's 'mong' comment says more about him than anything else

People are already impoverished and it is certain to get worse. I read one online disability forum where a woman with breast cancer and liver disease didn't know where she was going to get the ten pound needed for travel to hospital for an appointment.

 
Unlike David and Samantha Cameron, who claimed Disability Living Allowance for their child - and absolutely did not need to - many disabled now must adjust to seriously reduced circumstances since Cameron attacked DLA in the reforms and will replace with the patently detrimental Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

 
The transfer from DLA to PIP will remove help from 25% of those in receipt of the benefit now, despite the fact that this is a benefit that helps some disabled people to stay in work.
And therein lies much of the problem with these reforms. They lack joined-up thinking. They don't appear to have been thought through to a satisfactory end.

 
Take for example the perception within the Coalition, the DWP and the care services that everyone has a spouse and family to fall back on but that is not the reality for many people.
As a consequence of these cuts, more disabled people will find themselves in bedsits, or hostels or on the streets. There is a significant proportion of people with mental health issues and learning difficulties who find themselves in this situation already and it is certain to increase.

 
Well then perhaps it's time to resurrect another part of our history - seeing as David Cameron is clearly following a Dickensian blueprint for our poor - the workhouse.  Yes, that testament to our proud, class-conscious society.

 
Talk to any disabled or sick person right now and there is a word that crops up more than any other, a running thread central to what they are feeling. It is this: fear.

 
Fear of losing their homes when they no longer have DLA to top up their Housing Benefit shortfall where, thanks to the previous Conservative Government, private rents are uncapped and extortionate. Fear of losing their carer because there will be no allowance for them. Fear of being bed-ridden for the lack of anyone to lend support. Fear of losing ramps and assistance to get in and out of the house. Cold fear that this feeling of being unwanted and excluded from society is how it is going to be for the rest of their days.

With all this insistence of paid employment for the terminally ill it is no wonder that job centers, up and down the land, have been issued with details on how to handle suicides in their establishments.

In internet circles, where many disabled campaigners congregate, names are bandied around of those who have committed suicide through fear of going cold and hungry and feeling that they are increasingly a burden to society.

 
At the last count there were some 103 names linked to such suicides and I have actually heard people say that they would consider suicide as a way out of this constant state of anxiety and despair.

 
What alarms me is how this dispassion towards people with disabilities appears to be spreading from the Coalition down.

 
There are commentators who openly deride disabled people (Rod Liddle's ill-informed and hate-inciting rhetoric - a type of drunk-sick on paper - in a tabloid was one, but he's not alone). There are also comedians who mock disability. Ricky Gervais' 'mong' impersonation surely says more about him than it does about anyone else (although to be fair, Ricky has since claimed this to be naivety and that he was unaware that the term was still used to describe disability).

 
There is also, according to recent figures, a 40 per cent increase in disabled attacks in the past year alone.  Hardly wonder when the general public are constantly being goaded with the idea that we are 'mugs for supporting scroungers'. Talk like that tends to breed resentment.
And then there's this. An occurrence that should serve to alarm us all.

 
The British Medical Journal published a paper from Oxford University don Francesca Minerva, a philosopher and medical ethicist, who argued that doctors should have the right to kill newborn babies including those born with disabilities because, according to Minerva, a young baby is not a real person and so killing it in the first days after birth is little different to aborting it in the womb.

But here's what gives me hope. Ever since last week's rubber stamping of the Welfare Reform Bill, disability campaigners have begun a serious fightback and are preparing, like an army, to overcome this wickedness that has been wrought on them.  Information is being compiled and exchanged, despite ill-health and disability I have never witnessed such a bank of people determined to overcome the odds piled on them.

 
Let us not forget, and despite the mainstream media's best efforts to convince us otherwise, this is not about the neighbor with the apparent bad back who plays golf at weekends (who can also be genuinely disabled but even disabilities allow for better days when activity can increase), but about some of the most horrendous acts against truly vulnerable people.

 
This may not affect you. Perhaps your parents, or yourself even, have a sufficient financial cushion not to worry about that. What an enviable position to be in.

 
But what about those less fortunate?

 
I believe - and I’ve 47 years of a colourful life to base this judgement on - that the UK is comprised of essentially decent people. Citizens who care enough to see beyond their own selfish existence.

 
The people I know don’t want to be - and neither are they - the type of people who turn their backs when the going gets tough. They actually seek a more compassionate life on earth where we are prepared to support and contribute to each others lives.

 
In is unconscionable that these disability reforms have been allowed to happen. To be fair, we all knew it was a Conservative agenda, but a Liberal one as well? Goodness how Nick Clegg can ever recover from this I do not know. My imagination is not that good.

 
So the Welfare Reform Bill, after decades in the making, has finally come to pass. Oh, how proud are we as a nation? We did it. Gave those sick and crippled unfortunates a good old kicking. Let’s give ourselves a collective pat on the back for allowing this to proceed. Makes you proud to be British, doesn't it?

More from Sonia Poulton...

•   The Paralympics celebrate the strength of disabled people – as do all the protests that accompany them 30/08/12
•   Empathise with 'outsider' Julian Assange if you want, Mr Galloway, but don’t diminish sexual assault while doing it 22/08/12
•   So much is wrong about London 2012, but I would never criticise the stars of the show 09/08/12
•   Will Ed Miliband stand up for the disabled against distressing and unreliable work capability tests? 02/08/12
•   Clare's Law is designed to protect men and women from violent exes – but it wouldn't have saved me 17/07/12
•   Yes, Prime Minister, London 2012 will generate billions in profit. But for business, not people 12/07/12
•   With supermarkets donating food to poor families and soup kitchens, has Britain returned to the 1930s? 03/07/12
•   Is the BMA misguided to vote in favour of neutral counselling for women considering abortion? 28/06/12
•   Fathers worried about their daughters' future should take more responsibility for raising them in the first place 15/06/12
•   VIEW FULL ARCHIVE

Sonia Poulton