Cameron: dumping his support for sexually abused kids?

David Cameron outside Downing Street. Picture courtesy: Guardian

Politicians like journalists can be  creatures of the moment. Flitting from issue to issue – today will be the decision on implementing Leveson  on press regulation – they sometimes forget the bigger picture in the adrenalin rush of a crisis or a story.

Eleven years ago David Cameron, then a backbencher sat alongside Tom Watson, Labour MP, as a member of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. Together the two MPs signed up to a report on historical child abuse. One of the key recommendations of the report ( for those who want to read it all, the link is http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/836/83602.htm ) was that when the police ” trawl” for abuse victims and witnesses  those who are interviewed should get support from day one.

The recommendation states: “complainants should be offered appropriate victim support services, such as
counselling, from an early stage of their involvement in the investigation.”

Now 11 years later the police seem to be working overtime investigating historic child abuse cases. Operation Fernbridge – the police investigation into sexual abuse of children in the care of Richmond Council and their links to Elm Guest House in Barnes – has at least 16 potential children in its sights. The aftermath of the Savile inquiry could bring  many others into its scope and the don’t forget  Operation Fairbank investigating other child abuse  allegations and at least 30 investigations into child grooming across Britain. The scale of abuse is obviously much higher than people realise.

Officially the police and it now appears Downing Street believe all these former kids, some now in their 40s, are getting support. But evidence from two people who can be expected to be important witnesses in any trial involving the Richmond scandal suggests otherwise.

Details were published yesterday in the Sunday People and on the Exaro website. You can read the article in the People here (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vip-child-sex-ring-victims-1768956)  and the harrowing view of two witnesses here (http://www.exaronews.com/articles/4897/witnesses-in-operation-fernbridge-plead-for-support-service) .

Suffice to say they are both highly critical. One, Sam, not his real name , says the help he was given : “as “inadequate, ill-conceived and suffered from a complete failure to understand what they (the authorities) were doing.”

He doesn’t blame the police who appear to have been sensitive in interviewing him but just left him with a list of referral agencies to fend for himself.The other is also having to find his own care while his GP prescribes sleeping pills.

I put this direct to Downing Street – including sending Mr Cameron’s office a heart-rending quote from one of them – and reminded him of what he signed up to 11 years ago.

The reply was :”Sexual abuse is a devastating crime and the Government is committed to ensuring that every victim has access to the specialist support they need. This is why the Ministry of justice is providing £10.5million in Government funding over three years to provide services to support victims of these heinous crimes.

“The Government funds 78 Rape Support Centres across England and Wales. These provide confidential and expert support, advice and counselling for victims of these heinous crimes. More centres are in the process of being established and expected to open soon.

“The Government is committed to providing a justice system that protects, supports and reaches the highest possible standards of care for victims. There are a number of measures which already exist to protect vulnerable and special victims, including rape and sexual abuse victims, throughout their involvement with the CJS, and a number of reforms are under  way to improve the system further.”

 The rape crisis centres are not dealing with these partcular Fernbridge cases or any historic childhood sex abuse and therefore Downing Street is misleading people by suggesting that all this money is going to help victims of child sexual abuse.

 No answer was given to my main point – did David Cameron  support what he had signed up to 11 years ago. And the suggestion is that this support is not there on the ground nor is it co-ordinated.

 

 This is stupid, short-sighted and frankly callous. Tom Watson, who has been approached by some of the witnesses who suffered child sexual abuse about lack of support, believes Cameron should use his power to make sure this is properly implemented and people have support from day one.

 

For a successful prosecution of people who committed these heinous crimes some 30 years ago, the government must ensure that the people who complained and will be witnesses are properly supported. It is no good  having witnesses in the court who can’t sleep, feel sick or can’t cope.

 

Shame on you Mr Cameron if  you sign up to reports and don’t do anything about it when you are in power yourself.

David Hencke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(watch this space for more contact info)

Follow me on twitter @johnnyvoid

The Void

Welfare Myth Number One - Benefits Are Expensive

This is the first in occasional series on welfare myths - those persuasive facts that everybody knows to be true, but which, on closer examination turn out to be totally false.

Welfare Myth Number One is that the benefit system is expensive. When politicians want to frighten us they add together the cost of all benefits and pensions and get a staggering figure of £180 billion. We are then told that this figure is far too high and no longer affordable. They even imply that the high cost of benefits is the reason why our economy is in such trouble and why the government is cutting benefits by 20%.
However these figures are utterly misleading.

If I give you £10 but immediately take back £9 I have not given you £10 I have really given you £1. In the same way, to calculate the true cost of benefits we must take out the taxes that people pay from their benefits. For example, in 2010-11 the poorest 10% of families received an average of £104 per week in benefits. However they then paid £68 back to the government in taxes, leaving only £36 per week - or £5 per day.

The real cost of benefits is the net cost of benefits. That is, the cost of benefits after people have paid their taxes. We can find this data from the Office of National Statistics. For each household they have calculated both income, including benefits and taxes paid. So we can see how much better off people are, after taxes.

As the graph below shows, the poorest 40% of families are made a little better off because of the benefits system. The real cost of increasing the incomes of the poorest 40% of families is £27 billion. At the same time we can also see that the other 60% of families are worse off by a total of £213 billion.



What this shows is that most of our taxes do not go to fight poverty or redistribute income. £27 billion is less than 3% of GDP and about 6% of government spending. Fighting poverty is clearly a very low priority.

In fact many economists would argue that these benefits should not really be treated as government expenditure. Benefits are actually "transfer payments" - government is not spending money, government is shifting spending power from the rich to the poor. Cutting benefits and reducing the level of transfer payments can be very damaging to the economy because people on low incomes are less likely to:

• Spend their money abroad
• Save their money
• Hide it from the tax man

This is just one more reason why the government's efforts to target cuts on disabled people and people in poverty is economic folly.

Next time a politician tells you benefits and pensions are expensive remember that they are not talking about the real cost of benefits. And remember the wise words of the great American cynic, H L Mencken:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

I will explore who really benefits from the £213 billion of net taxes in a future welfare myth. If you are interested in these ideas you also might like to look at this more detailed essay on The Centre for Welfare Reform's website or join the Campaign for a Fair Society.

 

Follow Dr Simon Duffy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/simonjduffy

HuffPost

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

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

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

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

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

Iain Duncan Smith's delusional & self-righteous defence of workfare

Charities using forced labour supplied by the DWP

I would avoid giving anything to a charity which uses labour supplied free by the DWP. Nor would I buy from a charity shop which used forced labour. The very word “charity” has been emptied of meaning by organizations which now employ highly paid executives that were founded and run by volunteers who worked for nothing.

Saint Paul wrote that “the love of money is the root of all evil” and when one sees charities using forced labour provided by the DWP it’s hard not to sympathise with his sentiments. The very word “charity” is derived from the latin “caritas” which means love. Today we have in the U.K so called charities which are instrumental in the issuing of welfare sanctions against the poorer segments of society, using forced labour and running what are really businesses set up for the benefit of their executives.

I am no longer taken in by the misuse of words like “charity” to cover the wrongdoings of people motivated by greed and not love. I wonder if we will ever see a political party which will tackle this problem. I think it’s unlikely to happen in the near future so long as politicians see the charity sector as a tool for underming welfare and keeping downward pressure on wages through using forced labour.

When shopping at a charity shop I will ask politely if they are taking on anyone under the Work Programme. If the shop says yes then I will explain that in good conscience I cannot shop there since I believe it to be morally wrong that people are being forced to work for nothing by a so called charity.

Dame Vera Lynn called for charities to go back to being what they were in the past, i.e run by people who did the work out of love and not for money. Sue Ryder who set up the charity associated with her name later blamed the trustees of the Sue Ryder Foundation of hijacking the charity and accusing them of betraying its volunteer helpers and splashing out on new offices in central London.

Several years ago I worked with people who had an association with the Salvation Army and who were really trying to help people with big problems. They would have been as astonished as me to find out that the Salvation Army was using forced labour supplied by the DWP and incredulous that one of the directors of the Salvation Army trading company ran an external company which had made millions out of the clothes donated to the Salvation Army.

The Salvation Army has tried to backtrack on the forced labour issue by referring to its voluntary nature. Let’s be very clear about this. If the Salvation Army is using people supplied by the DWP who are subject to sanctions if they refuse to attend then there is nothing voluntary about it. To take away the welfare benefits of anyone if they refuse to work unpaid is not voluntary but a form of forced/coerced labour.

Iain Duncan-Smith proclaimed his Catholicity on a recent Question Time BBC programme. How he or the Salvation Army can reconcile their Christianity with what they are, or have been, involved in needs some explaining.

Perhaps one of the single biggest causes of the Christianization of the Roman Empire was love given to the poor by the early Christian communities. Charity, in its true and traditional meaning, might be considered Christianity’s unique selling point in the ancient world through it’s scale over and above any spiritual influences. It particularly took hold amongst the poorest and marginalised sectors of society: slaves, women and children. The message of the gospel had a particular meaning and resonated strongly with the poor and oppressed. Today it often seems that the gospel of the poor proclaimed by Jesus has been turned into the Gospel of the Rich – a form of Mammon Worship.

Welfare Sorrows

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

Government Think Tank Calls For Infiltrating Conspiracy Websites

Furious that state involvement in major terror attacks is being exposed to a wider audience than ever before via the Internet, a UK think tank closely affiliated with the Downing Street has called for authorities to infiltrate conspiracy websites in an effort to “increase trust in the government”.

“A Demos report published today, The Power of Unreason, argues that secrecy surrounding the investigation of events such as the 9/11 New York attacks and the 7/7 bombings in London merely adds weight to unsubstantiated claims that they were “inside jobs,” reports the London Independent.

In other words, the fact that the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates that both 7/7 and 9/11were “inside jobs” of one form or another, and that huge numbers of people are now aware of this via the increasing influence of the Internet, is hampering efforts to commit more acts of terror, therefore the government needs to change its strategy.

In the report, Demos, “Recommends the Government fight back by infiltrating internet sites to dispute these theories.” One of the tools Demos already employs to “fight back” against conspiracy theories is by labeling anyone who challenges the government’s official story as an extremist or a terrorist recruiter.

The strategy mirrors that advocated by White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a 2008 white paper similarly called for conspiracy websites to be infiltrated and undermined in order to dilute their influence. In the same report, Sunstein also called for taxing conspiracy theories (any viewpoint that differs with the official version) and outright banning free speech that the authorities disapproved of.

What Demos and Sunstein are essentially calling for is classic “provocateur” style infiltration, updated for the 21st century, that came to the fore during the Cointelpro years, an FBI program from 1956-1971 that was focused around disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents, often using illegal methods.

The fact that governments on both sides of the pond have been caught over and over again habitually lying about everything under the sun, allied to a compliant corporate media that has aided authorities in covering up their misdeeds, has prompted a complete collapse in trust from the people, an effect that is now seriously hampering the state’s efforts to enlist implied consent, with millions of people rebelling against the system through civil disobedience and non-compliance in a myriad of different ways.

That’s why Demos, a mouthpiece for the British authorities, is desperate to infiltrate “conspiracy websites,” ie groups of people who broadcast the truth, in order to “increase trust” in a government that has lost all credibility. 

As we have documented, governments all over the world, most notably the U.S. and Israel, already employ teams of agents whose sole job revolves around infiltrating and subverting websites that publish the truth about government corruption and atrocities.

Demos is a front for the insidious Common Purpose network, a group that Lt Cdr Brian Gerrish has exposed as playing a fundamental role in the advancement of Britain’s role in the new world order.Julia Middleton, Chief Executive of Common Purpose, sits on Demos’ advisory council. 

Demos was founded in 1993 by marxists Martin Jacques and Geoff Mulgan, and was seen as being closely affiliated with Tony Blair’s Labour government. Mulgan went on to work inside Downing Street in 1997. Current British Prime Minister David Cameron also works closely with Demos and has given speeches at the group’s events.

Demos has routinely acted as a platform for elitists who wish to drastically alter society, eliminate freedoms, and sacrifice British sovereignty in pursuit of global government. On August 9, 2006,British Home Secretary Dr John Reid, another former marxist, gave a speech at a Demos conferencestating that Britons “may have to modify their notion of freedom”, claiming that freedom is “misused and abused by terrorists.” 

Demos is partnered with numerous other globalist organizations from government and industry, including IBM, The Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and Shell International. The organization’s logo includes an all-seeing eye within its design.

 Although the group poses as an independent think tank, Demos is little more than a public relations firm for the British government and security services. Its efforts to demonize conspiracy theories in order to “increase trust in the government” is a transparent ploy to do the bidding of its masters, by demonizing anyone who challenges a corrupt, lying state and its nefarious activities as an extremist and a potential domestic terrorist – contributing to the chilling process which seeks to crush free speech on the Internet.

—

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show. 

http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/government-think-tank-calls-for-infiltrating-conspiracy-websites?xg_source=activity

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

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

PCS Union: Workfare a stain on welfare state

Standing up for the poor and vulnerable: Day Four at TUC Congress

A vigorous defence of the welfare state was spearheaded by PCS to open the final day of proceedings at the 2012 TUC Congress.

Since the coalition government came into power in May 2010 there has been a clear rise in the levels of deprivation. New inequalities are having a destructive impact upon the lives of vulnerable people and services are becoming ever more fragmented, leading to wide variations in access across the UK.

Around £30billion of welfare cuts have been announced by the government, coupled with a sinister vilification by this government and right-wing tabloids to denigrate the welfare state and to demonise those without work, or unable to work, and young people, migrants and the disabled.

Proposing composite Motion 8 - which includes reiterating the principles of fair and equal pay, condemns ‘workfare’ policies and re-instating services necessary to support vulnerable groups – PCS president Janice Godrich said: “We face a government firmly in the interests of the richest 1% of society. It tells us that the welfare state is unaffordable but has already found the money to cut the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45% and to cut corporation tax from 28% to 24%.

“Cameron and Osborne are taking money from the disabled, the unemployed, lone parents and those struggling to pay rent to give to the super rich. But it’s not just this perverse re-distribution we should be concerned about, what we see is the see is the vilification and bullying of anyone on benefits. We see this with the work capability assessments carried out by Atos, the private I.T. company paid £100million a year to carry out these tests formerly performed by public sector workers. We know these tests are deeply flawed because disabled people tell us they are and the British Medical Association has called for them to be scrapped.

“Unemployed people are being bullied as well. The workfare schemes are a disgraceful stain on the welfare state our movement created. A society which refuses to support its most vulnerable has lost the right to call itself a civilised society.”

The motion was unanimously carried.

12 September 2012
Public and Commercial Services Union

Find out more about the PCS alternative to the cuts