Showing posts with label Employment and Support Allowance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Employment and Support Allowance. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

‘GPs unaware they can flag up patients at risk’ ~ The Scotsman and Edinburgh Evening News


Evening News
Scotsman dot com

By John McArdle 

Published on 14/05/2013 12:00
Sick and disabled people are being subjected to enormous and avoidable suffering as a consequence of the UK 
Government’s draconian welfare reforms.

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has reportedly written to Iain Duncan Smith and David Cameron informing them that Scottish NHS and GPs surgeries are now facing meltdown dealing with the fallout of their welfare “reforms” that the vast majority of MSPs agree are badly failing Scotland’s people.

Over the last 12 months a succession of full Westminster debates have been held on the matter and last June the British Medical Association voted unanimously to demand that the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) be scrapped with immediate effect “to be replaced by a rigorous and safe system that does not cause avoidable harm to some of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.”

However, the pleas of our doctors, charities, civil society organisations and politicians from all sides of the political spectrum – including 121 MPs who signed House of Commons Early Day Motion 295 in support of the BMA’s position – have fallen on deaf ears and even harder hearts.

In response to last week’s Evening News report on the issue, a DWP spokeswoman stated that “GPs have said they do not want to be responsible for making decisions on people’s benefit entitlement, which is why we request the appropriate information from GPs to enable us to make those decisions”.

The truth, as the department well knows, is that the DWP almost never requests information from GPs and it remains irrefutably the case that those performing the Atos Work Capability Assessments and DWP Decision Makers continue to make complex medical risk assessments based upon grossly inadequate patient information.

The inevitable result has been the sickening, daily occurrence of Scotland’s chronically sick and/or disabled people’s lives being devastated with individuals, families and carers pushed over the edge. Such a disgraceful state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue for one day longer in a society that deigns to call itself civilised.

ESA Regulations (21013) 25 and 31 deal with flagging up a substantial risk of harm to patients if they were to be found “fit for work” or to have “limited capability for work” and placed in the DWP Work-Related Activity Group (WRAG) where: “the claimant suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement and, by reasons of such disease or disablement, there would be a 
substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if the claimant were found not to have limited 
capability for work.”

Regrettably, it remains the case that only DWP and ATOS staff are aware of these regulations whilst GPs remain ignorant of their existence and those performing the WCA and DWP Decision Makers continue to make complex risk assessments based on grossly inadequate patient information.

Where GPs have applied the law the horrific suffering of the type reported in last week’s News has been avoided.

Contrary to suggestions by the DWP spokeswoman and DWP Minister for Work Mark Hoban, the use of these regulations by GPs is emphatically not about doctors policing the benefit system. They are about doctors discharging their ethical duty to patients. The GMC’s own publication Good Medical Practice states clearly:
“a doctor must (overriding duty or principle) take prompt action if he feels that patient safety is or may be seriously compromised by inadequate . . . policies or systems.”
Failure by the BMA to urgently publicise and make known to every GP in the country the existence and lawful application of these Substantial Risk Regulations 25 and 31 without any further delay would, in the words of the doctors’ letter to the BMA 
leadership, amount to negligence.

John McArdle is a spokesman for the Black Triangle Campaign against the current disability benefit reforms

Thursday, March 7, 2013

#ESAendgame Beyond Day 1


The launch of #ESAendgame yesterday was simply remarkable. 

 

Nearly 9,000 people have read about #ESAendgame in under 24 hours. 

 

It was the most shared and read article online in the UK yesterday. (Ebuzzing News)

 
318 people have taken part in our consultation "What Most Needs to Change about Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and Why" In DWP terms, 318 responses is very large. But I want 1,000 - 2,000 We MUST show that we truly represent the experiences and opinions of sick and disabled people and their carers. A consultation here with thousands of comments is a VERY powerful tool in anything we compile.
 
PLEASE keep sharing any of the consultation posts like yesterday 
http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/esa-sos-starting-gun.html
whenever you can and encourage people to comment - you don't have to be sick or disabled or a carer to understand that ESA is inhumane and want to stand up for justice. I can't stress enough that #ESAendgame is open to EVERYONE. In fact, the more non-disabled people, DPOs, charities, MPs and "influential politicoes" that contribute and who join with us, the more credible our response and more frightening for Government. 
 
It is ONLY unity that will convince the government to think again, but with unions, the TUC, disability groups, political sites, everyday blogs on shopping and cooking and fishing, charities and politicians ALL talking about why ESA must be changed NOW we CAN win. But every last one of us has to join. Please, cross-post everything - you don't have to ask, just link back so we can estimate our reach.
 
So far, the issues people believe to change about the WCA and ESA RIGHT NOW (In order of most mentions) are :

  • Fear and Dread caused by the process
  • Constant Reassessment
  • The One Year Time Limit
  • Worsens Mental Health conditions
  • Continuing scrounger Rhetoric and made to feel dishonest and worthless
  • The Error rate and inaccuracies on forms and in decisions
  • Continuing inability to deal with Mental Health conditions
  • Makes symptoms/illnesses worse. 
  • Assessments are inhumane
  • The assessment ignores own Drs/medical evidence
  • Removing ESA indefinitely for reconsiderations before appeal - fear of no income
  • Fear of the Brown Envelope
  • WCA is designed to make you fail
  • The Assessors are not appropriate to the condition
  • Only 30 days to return the ESA50 application form
  • The form is to hard to fill in and takes enormous emotional toll
  • It's just a tick box system that gets 1 in 6 decisions wrong. LIMA must go
  • The Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is not a "real life test", not about what you can do in a real job
  • Poverty casued by out of control process
  • People dying days after being found "Fit For Work" - in ever increasing numbers
  • **TRIGGER** ESA process making some suicidal
  • A growing number of people are "Fit to Work" according top Atos, unfit according to JCP and stuck in limbo
  • Changes are purely ideological and not based on evidence
  • The process is clogged up and taking far far too long
  • Many Disability Testing Centres are still inaccessible
  • Lies on forms
  • Fear for the future of dependants without carers
  • The descriptors do not apply to many conditions
  • Money taxpayer is paying for this failure
  • Forcing abuse victims to discuss abuse with stranger

I think that's a pretty good start as mini-sections of a report to present to the public eh? Your quotes explaining each one and adding human warmth? 
 
 
PLEASE we need new people to join every day and leave comments. 
 
Name (or twitter/Facebook/pseudonym)
Constituency
1 line on what needs to change NOW about ESA
 
And please keep sharing every day and using #ESAendgame on twitter when discussing ESA.
 
Let's keep building momentum
 
**PLEASE do remember to leave your constituency. It's not an address, but will be SO helpful later when we want to contact every MP and peer in the country to already have people who can send a quick email or two in every constituency. 
 

Saturday, March 2, 2013

WHY THE DWP-ATOS BROWN ENVELOPE CAN KILL: Broken Heart Death Syndrome

 

Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy

The government, DWP and Atos surely KNOW about this condition. By placing sick and disabled individuals under severe chronic stress, they are playing russian roulette with each and every life.


 Killer can strike at any age

 

Why a shock can kill you (even good news): Release of adrenaline after sudden discovery can lead to heart problems 

By Sophie Borland
|

A shock can be fatal – and it makes no difference whether it's the trauma of a loved one's death or the excitement of a lottery win, experts claim.
Research suggests that a startling revelation can pose a danger to health whether the news is positive or negative.

And it seems women who have just been through the menopause are most at risk.

Researchers say they have identified how emotional trauma - from winning the lottery to losing a close relative - can trigger a potentially lethal catastrophe in the body they call the 'broken heart syndrome'.

German scientists say they have discovered exactly how a sudden discovery or traumatic experience can be fatal.

They say the news or event causes the body to produce large amounts of stress hormones including adrenaline, which narrows the main arteries which supply blood to the heart.

This paralyses the heart's main pumping chamber, causing a sudden change in rhythm similar to a heart attack.

The victim will suddenly find it very difficult to breathe, have sharp pains in their chest and may feel very weak. Some die, although many recover if given urgent medical treatment.

Scientists have been aware for some time of 'broken heart syndrome', or patients who apparently die from grief after losing a loved one, but they have not fully understood why it happens.

Professor Nienaber said broken heart syndrome mostly affects women who have gone through the menopause

Now, however, researchers from the University Clinic of Rostock, in northern Germany, have come up with a possible explanation based on studies of patients.

 And they say the reaction isn't necessarily triggered by a bereavement – it could also happen after winning the lottery or even having an argument.

Dr Christoph Nienaber, director of cardiology at the university, said: 'These patients suffer under a heavy emotional load, either positive or negative. Their hearts literally break. It usually happens within minutes to an hour of hearing the news.

 'The typical scenario is bad  news but there are reports of  both and we don't know what causes it most.

'We are very far from a conclusion however, this is only speculative.'

He added: 'It mostly affects women who have undergone the menopause and are aged between 50 and 70 when they fall ill.

'We are still unsure why it seems to affect this group the most.' One theory is that the female body reacts especially strongly to stress hormones after menopause.

It is estimated that 2 per cent of the 300,000 Britons recorded as having a heart attack every year have suffered from broken heart syndrome – amounting to some 6,000 patients.

The exact figures are not known as many will simply be recorded as having had a heart attack.
Dr Nienaber said that most patients in these cases survive, provided they receive swift treatment.

Daily Mail





Why you really can suffer from a broken heart

Last updated at 09:27 10 February 2005

Doctors were today urged to recognise the unique symptoms of "broken heart syndrome" in patients who appear to have suffered a heart attack.

Shocking events such as the death of a loved-one or being the victim of crime have long been known as possible triggers for medical conditions such as a heart attack.

Now researchers in the United States have found that sudden emotional stress can also lead to severe but reversible heart muscle weakness which mimics the symptoms of a heart attack.

The team, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, said that patients with this condition - stress cardiomyopathy or "broken heart syndrome" - were often misdiagnosed with a massive heart attack.

Instead they had actually suffered from a surge in adrenalin and other stress hormones that temporarily "stun" the heart.

The researchers, from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said they while "broken heart syndrome" was not as common as heart attack, it probably occurred more often than doctors realised.

Dr Ilan Wittstein said: "Our study should help physicians distinguish between stress cardiomyopathy and heart attacks. It should also reassure patients that they have not had permanent heart damage."

The researchers found that some people responded to sudden and overwhelming emotional stress by releasing large amount of stress chemicals like adrenalin into the bloodstream, as well as breakdown products and small proteins produced by an excited nervous system.

They said these chemicals could be temporarily toxic to the heart, effectively stunning the muscle and producing symptoms similar to a typical heart attack - chest pain, shortness of breath and heart failure.

By examining a group of 19 patients with symptoms of "broken heart syndrome", the researchers found that it was clinically very different to the typical heart attack.

The patients, 18 of whom were women, had signs of an apparent heart attack after emotional stress, including a death, shock from a surprise party and an armed robbery.

They were compared to seven other patients who had suffered a severe heart attack.

Dr Wittstein said: "After observing several cases of 'broken heart' syndrome at Hopkins hospitals - most of them in middle-aged or elderly women - we realised that these patients had clinical features quite different from typical cases of heart attack, and that something very different was happening.

"These cases were, initially, difficult to explain because most of the patients were previously healthy and had few risk factors for heart disease."

Tests on these patients showed no blockages in the arteries which supplied the heart.

Blood tests also failed to reveal some of the typical signs of a heart attack - such as high levels of cardiac enzymes that are released into the bloodstream from damaged heart muscle.

MRI scans revealed that none of the stressed patients had suffered irreversible muscle damage. The researchers said of one surprise was that recovery rates in the stressed patients were much faster than typically seen after a heart attack.

Within a few days the patients showed dramatic improvement in the heart's ability to pump and had completely recovered in two weeks.

In comparison, partial recovery after a heart attack can take weeks or months, and often the heart muscle damage is permanent.

Levels of stress chemicals in the stressed patient group were also significantly higher than in those with a classic heart attack.

Researcher Dr Hunter Champion said: "How stress hormones act to stun the heart remains unknown, but there are several possible explanations that will be the subject of additional studies.

"The chemicals may cause spasm in the coronary arteries, or have a direct toxic effect on the heart muscle, or cause calcium overloads that results in temporary dysfunction."

The researchers said they expected the number of patients diagnosed with "broken heart syndrome" to increase as more doctors learnt to recognise its unique clinical features.

Daily Mail

 

Why a broken heart really can kill you and women are NINE times more at risk

 

  • Condition brought on by sudden or prolonged stress can lead to heart failure

  • Tests show dramatic changes in rhythm and blood substances typical of a heart attack, but no artery blockages


By Deborah Arthurs


The end of a romance or the death of a loved one really can cause the heart to break – and women are the most likely to suffer.

Research shows that a shock or emotional trauma can trigger the symptoms of a heart attack or other cardiac problem.

Women are up to nine times more likely to suffer ‘broken heart syndrome’, the first large-scale study of the condition has concluded.

Women are seven to nine times more likely to suffer a heart attack from shock or distress - with no sign of blocked arteries or previous history of cardiac problems

Doctors say the classic case involves the death of a husband triggering a rush of adrenaline and other stress hormones that cause the heart’s main pumping chamber to balloon suddenly and malfunction. 

Tests show dramatic changes in rhythm and blood substances  typical of a heart attack, but none of the artery blockages that  typically cause one.

Most patients recover with no lasting damage, but 1 per cent of cases prove fatal.
Dr Abhishek Deshmukh, a heart specialist at the University of Arkansas in the U.S., studied the phenomenon after noting he had treated more women for ‘broken heart syndrome’ than men.

A trawl of records of 1,000 hospitals revealed 6,229 cases in 2007. Only 671 of these involved men.

Taking into account factors such as high blood pressure revealed women to be 7.5 times more likely to suffer the syndrome than men.  It was three times more common in females over 55 than those under.

Broken heart syndrome can occur as a result of shock - usually from bad news, but occasionally from good, such as a lottery win

And females under 55 were 9.5 times more likely to suffer it than men of that age, an American Heart Association conference heard.

No one knows why women are more vulnerable but sex hormones may be at play or men’s bodies  may be better at handling stress. The conference also heard that while heart attacks happen more in winter, broken heart syndrome is more common in summer. It can also be brought on by ‘good’ shocks such as winning the lottery.

The study looked specifically at heart problems but bereavement can also damage health in other ways, with men the weaker sex.

A British study found that losing a wife puts the widower at six times a higher risk of death, while a widow’s chances of dying are doubled.

The risk peaks for either surviving spouse in the first year after bereavement, with those married the longest in greatest danger. It is thought the resultant stress depresses the immune system, making existing medical conditions worse.

Ex-prime minister James Callaghan was said to have died of a  broken heart after he passed away aged 92 in 1995, days after Audrey, his wife of 67 years.

In 2009, the parents of Spandau Ballet’s Martin and Gary Kemp died within 48 hours of each other.Their father Frank, 79, suffered a heart attack. His wife Eileen, 77, was in the same Bournemouth  hospital having a heart bypass. Her sons told her when she came round and she died soon afterwards.

Daily Mail

Sunday, February 17, 2013

IDS confirms: IT IS WORKFARE!

On the Andrew Marr show on BBC  IDS was speaking about the Poundland case in which Cait Reilly was forced to work in a Poundland store for two weeks and thus had to abandon a voluntary position at a museum. During the interview he said:

‘She was paid jobseeker’s allowance by the taxpayer to do this.’


thereby confirming what most had known all along that, far from being an individually-tailored training scheme, the Work programme is nothing other than Workfare in which the benificiaries are the companies who get a free workforce at taxpayer expense.

soiniciulacht

IDS: Shelf-stacking more important than geology





Iain Duncan Smith: "Terry Leahy started his life stacking shelves"

The work and pensions secretary has criticised people "who think they're too good" to stack supermarket shelves on back-to-work government schemes.

On the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Iain Duncan Smith suggested that many "smart people" overlooked the importance of effective shelf-stacking.

A geology graduate recently won a legal victory over the back-to-work scheme.

But Mr Duncan Smith warned against assuming that geology was more important than supermarket work.

Geology graduate Cait Reilly, 24, argued at the Appeal Court that her unpaid work placement at Poundland, which she had been required to undertake in return for continued benefits payments, breached laws on forced labour.


'Most successful' scheme
I don't think I am above working in shops like Poundland. I now work part-time in a supermarket. It is just that I expect to get paid for working”      -Cait Reilly
Although Miss Reilly won the case, Mr Duncan Smith said the judges had decided her argument that the scheme breached her human rights was "rubbish".

The court had ruled against the government, he explained, because "the regulations were set too wide and weren't specific enough".

"I've already put emergency regulations down, and that's ended it," he added.

Commenting further on the case, Mr Duncan Smith said: "I understand she said she wasn't paid. She was paid jobseeker's allowance, by the taxpayer, to do this.

"I'm sorry, but there is a group of people out there who think they're too good for this kind of stuff.
"Let me remind you that [former Tesco chief executive] Terry Leahy started his life stacking shelves.
"The next time somebody goes in - those smart people who say there's something wrong with this - they go into their supermarket, ask themselves this simple question, when they can't find the food they want on the shelves, who is more important - them, the geologist, or the person who stacked the shelves?"

Mr Duncan Smith argued that "most young people love" their work experience placements.

It was the government's "most successful" back-to-work scheme, he said: "It's been so successful that over half of those kids have left benefits."

The scheme had been launched to help young people trapped in a vicious circle where they could not get a job because they did not have any experience on their CVs, he said.

'Complete waste of time'

Mr Duncan Smith added: "But what we've said to them is: once you commit to doing that programme, because companies have to make arrangements around it, then if you don't do this you may suffer a benefit withdrawal because you have messed them around and they are therefore going to suffer as a result of that.
"It's a point that anyone out there listening to this will know. You have to learn early that if you commit to something, you stay and do it."

Miss Reilly, a University of Birmingham geology graduate, and 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamie Wilson, from Nottingham, both succeeded in their claims that the unpaid schemes were legally flawed.

This was because the regulations behind the schemes did not comply with the Act of Parliament that gave the DWP the power to introduce the programme.

Miss Reilly said that in November 2011 she had to leave her voluntary work at a local museum and work unpaid at the Poundland store in Kings Heath, Birmingham, under a scheme known as the "sector-based work academy".

"Those two weeks were a complete waste of my time, as the experience did not help me get a job," she said, after the court ruling on 12 February.

"I was not given any training and I was left with no time to do my voluntary work or search for other jobs.

"The only beneficiary was Poundland, a multi-million pound company. Later I found out that I should never have been told the placement was compulsory.

"I don't think I am above working in shops like Poundland. I now work part-time in a supermarket. It is just that I expect to get paid for working."

In a wide-ranging interview, Mr Duncan Smith also said:
  • The UK faces a "big battle" in the EU institutions over rules governing access to benefits, accusing EU officials of trying to "take control" of policies previously left to member states.
  • Labour's attempts to characterise planned housing benefit changes as a "bedroom tax" were "nonsense". He added: "We have in social sector housing a very large number of people in houses where they have many more bedrooms than they actually need."

Analysis


The Cait Reilly case has clearly niggled Iain Duncan Smith. To him, it's about a wider political principle that there should not be a "something-for-nothing" culture.
While Cait Reilly argued she was being asked to work for free, Mr Duncan Smith has in effect said that Job Seeker's Allowance should be seen as an equivalent of a wage for those sent on work placements.
Meanwhile his remarks about the importance of supermarket shelf-stackers suggest he believes that some job seekers are too snobbish about certain kinds of work.

Related Stories

BBC

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Welfare reform maze leaving claimants ‘in limbo’

THOUSANDS of vulnerable claimants are losing out on benefits because GPs are not filling in forms correctly, Scotland on Sunday has learned.

The massive reform process – currently reassessing the sickness benefit claims of thousands of people in Scotland and the UK – has already attracted widespread controversy, with some claiming they are being forced to look for jobs when they cannot work.

New details emerging suggest that a dysfunctional system is to blame, with benefits being wrongly withdrawn purely because forms have not been completed.

Atos, the company supervising the assessments, has suggested that thousands of people are being called in for a review of their benefits because GPs have not sent back forms setting out their medical history as requested. If they had, their benefits might have been left unaltered.

Critics of the government’s welfare reform programme have told MSPs that the welfare system is “broken” and have called for a better approach to helping people on benefits, who are missing out because of an overly complex system.

There is also evidence that when people appeal the loss of their benefits, some GPs are charging up to £100 for a medical report because it falls outside their contract.

There are also accusations that Atos, acting on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions, has failed to engage properly with GPs, leading to erroneous decisions being made. Others claim the views of medical professionals with knowledge of people’s cases – such as psychiatrists and specialist staff – are not being considered before claimants are assessed.

The row revolves around Britain’s 1.5 million claimants of incapacity benefit, who are having their claims reassessed as the UK government seeks to trim the welfare budget. Figures last week showed that a third are being adjudged capable of working, while a further 41 per cent have been deemed too unwell but told to consider a return to the labour market at a later date.

Evidence presented to Holyrood’s welfare reform committee has now pointed out a eries of bureaucratic errors in the process. It is understood that when considering a person’s benefits eligibility, Atos asks for GP reports in 15 per cent of cases as it seeks evidence on whether to allow the benefit to continue. MSPs have been told that, in as many as half of these cases, requests do not get answered.

Source; Scotsman

JobCentre pressures firms to turn jobs into workfare

Angus MP Mike Weir has demanded that the Prime Minister personally intervene and act on claims that some JobCentre managers are putting pressure on employers to convert paid vacancies into workplace experience placements to meet targets set by the Department of Work and Pensions.

He said: “On the day that unemployment figures showed unemployment in Scotland had fallen to the lowest levels in four years it is scandalous to hear that a Westminster Government department is apparently seeking to undermine real jobs.

“Whilst I was pleased the Prime Minister appeared to accept the seriousness of the issue I was disappointed he did not undertake to ensure that the practise was immediately stopped.”

Source

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Iain Duncan Smith's callous disrespect for the dead [Another Angry Voice]

I pretty much always attempt to write about politics in objective journalistic style. I feel that I engage more readers with this style of presenting facts, conducting rational analysis, and attempting to restrict my own personal opinion. However, in this case, I'm going to say what I really think.

The Tory Welfare minister Iain Duncan Smith is an odious shit.

Just take a look at the embedded video below, which is a clip from Question Time on 22nd November 2012. In the clip, the panel are discussing the question of government welfare policy and the author Owen Jones (who wrote Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class) tried to confront Iain Duncan Smith with the names and circumstances of death of just two (of the thousands) of severely disabled/terminally ill people that have died having been declared "fit for work" by the Tory - DWP -Atos "disability denial factory".

Iain Duncan Smith's response to these details of people's deaths was a palpable demonstration of the man's utter lack of human decency.

 

Here's a transcript of the discussion:

Owen Jones: "There is a point that has to be made about the treatment of disabled people in this country. There's two names I want to give Iain ... Brian McArdle, 57 years old, paralyzed down one side, blind in one eye, he couldn't speak. He died one day after being found "fit for work" by Atos. Another example, Karen Sherlock..."

Iain Duncan Smith: (interrupts angrily) "Hang on a minute, we've heard a lot from you..."


So there you have it, Iain Duncan Smith cares so little about the suffering and death of actual, real, named people that he would disrespectfully interrupt the description of the circumstances of their death with an angry political tirade. Viewers never even got to find out the circumstances of Karen Sherlock's death, thanks to Iain Duncan Smith's interruption and David Dimbleby's cowardly decision to shut down the debate (instead of chastising Iain for interrupting so disrespectfully, or intervening to allow Owen to complete his point, as any decent moderator would surely have done). For those of you that are interested in the circumstances of Karen's death, here are a couple of heartbreaking links detailing the appalling suffering of this poor woman, much of it directly attributable to Iain Duncan Smith's Welfare regime. (RIP Karen Sherlock, Karen's story, pieced together from her own words). Seriously, I challenge you to read either of these articles and remain completely unmoved by her suffering. If you do remain completely unmoved it must be that you, like Iain Duncan Smith, lack a single shred of empathy or basic human decency.

Anyone with a shred of decency would have waited for Owen to finish speaking of the dead, then offer condolences to the families of the dead before attempting a counter-argument, but not callous Iain. He clearly couldn't care less about the families of the deceased.

So there you have it; in video and in writing. Iain Duncan Smith has no respect for the dead, or for the families of the dead. In fact, hearing about the dead actually inspires him to launch into angry and defensive political tirades. One of the most shocking things for me, was the fact that Iain Duncan Smith's revolting display of disrespect for the dead actually elicited a round of applause from the crowd. I'm not normally one to blame the collective for the actions of individuals within the collective, however, as British people we should all hang our heads in shame that people amongst us would actually applaud such a revolting display of callous disrespect for the dead.

Lets try a simple thought experiment: Say a Question Time panellist is detailing the tragic circumstances of death of some British soldiers in Afghanistan, when he is angrily interrupted by another panelist who happens to be a Muslim. She points her finger and shouts "hang on a minute, we've heard a lot from you..." followed by a tirade against Britain's foreign policy. Even if the criticisms of British foreign policy made by our hypothetical Muslim panelist are entirely accurate, would you expect her to get a round of applause from the audience after disrespecting the dead? I hardly think so. In fact, I'm fairly sure that our hypothetical Muslim panelist would be booed by the audience and then be rapidly transformed into a national hate figure by the right-wing press for her display of contempt for the dead.

I really don't know what else to say. If you're a tribalist Tory voter, you'll continue to vote for grotesque people like Iain Duncan Smith, no matter what they say or do. If it is wearing a blue rosette, it doesn't matter whether it is a donkey or despot, you'll vote for it. No matter how demonstrably revolting the Tory regime becomes, and no matter what people like me say, you'll still jump to Iain's defence because you're so mired in confirmation bias, that you will continue to swallow every feeble Tory justification narrative and remain steadfastly incapable of even acknowledging any alternative side to the debate.

You lot are such die-hard Tories that you'd even applaud Iain's callous disrespect for the dead. you sicken me almost as much as he does, but your saving grace is your ignorance. Iain Duncan Smith is an intelligent man that knows exactly how harmful his disability scapegoating campaign has been: You are perhaps too intellectually challenged to accept the reality that thousands of people are dying after being declared "fit for work", 100,000s more are suffering unimaginable stress, the Tories and the right-wing press are deliberately  orchestrating a disability witch-hunt and, there has been a massive rise in disability hate crime and unprovoked violent attacks against the disabled. Even if that doesn't bother you, surely you can't approve of the vast waste of public money as 10,000s of absurd "fit for work" rulings are expensively overturned in court, at the expense of the taxpayer (at no cost to Atos, the company that made the often appallingly bad decisions to find so many terribly disabled and even terminally ill people "fit for work"). Perhaps, despite all this evidence you still side with Iain and prefer to continue blaming the victim.

I know I won't convince people like you with my usual strategy of explaining things clearly, presenting evidence and conducting rational analysis, so just this once I'll allow myself to express my feelings instead.

Iain Duncan Smith is a callous, disrespectful, self-serving monstrous shit of a man. It sickens me that a man with such a demonstrable lack of basic human decency could have risen so high in British politics. He is odious and obnoxious and vile. He is so malicious he sorely tests my pacifist stance. I sincerely believe that violence begets violence and almost always worsens any given circumstance. Despite this, I imagine that I'd find it extremely difficult to resist the urge to smack this guy hard in the mouth. If a nefarious cretin like Iain Duncan Smith can work himself into a rage when confronted with the names of dead people (real people with actual lives that have been lost, and actual families that mourn for them) then I think I can be excused for allowing myself, for a moment, to express my feelings of revulsion at this odious moral vacuum of a man in emotional (rather than objective journalist) language:
Iain Duncan Smith is an odious shit.
Another Angry Voice

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Atos assessment death rate dwarfs that of soldiers in Afghanistan



The headline says it all.

Some people reading this might think it tasteless to compare the number of people who have died while going through the Atos/DWP assessment process for Employment and Support Allowance with the number of soldiers who have given their lives for their country in Afghanistan. I don’t.

Consider the outpouring of sorrow that takes place when one of our soldiers dies. They deserve that recognition; they have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Sick and disabled people who have died because our bullying government’s assessment system caused more stress than their weakened system could handle – they don’t get that kind of recognition. Perhaps it’s because it is an action of their own government that is killing them.

Perhaps you will look more kindly on the sick and disabled of this country when you read the following:

According to the BBC, by October 30 this year, the total number of British soldiers who had died in Afghanistan since military operations began there in 2002 was 437.


That’s equivalent to the number of sick or disabled people who die - while going through the Atos/DWP work capability assessment system (or as a result of going through it) - every six weeks.

Vox Political