[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Filling the fit for work form in is the easy part, the work capability assessment is the issue.
There is a lack of empathy in general imo, mention the word welfare and the word that springs to mind as the most prevalent descriptor in the media is 'scrounger'.
I agree there will be those who have had a seemless transition I'm glad of course Smudgie did, yet is this representative?
It's not just welfare affected, it's swathes of cuts to vital services and resources leaving mentally and physically incapacitated stranded, on a national level how many people is it feasible to suggest have benefited form the cuts?

I'm only speaking from my own experience with families and yes in all cases it has been seemless and two families were moved up while the other 3 remained on the same level, I repeat I am well aware that people are falling through the cracks, and that services are being reduced, all I am saying is not everyone has been treated badly and I think this message is just as important for stressed claimants to hear as the negative stories.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I'm only speaking from my own experience with families and yes in all cases it has been seemless and two families were moved up while the other 3 remained on the same level, I repeat I am well aware that people are falling through the cracks, and that services are being reduced, all I am saying is not everyone has been treated badly and I think this message is just as important for stressed claimants to hear as the negative stories.

And again that's great, yet again nationally cases of individual cases or cracks and claimants pale into insignificance when weighted against the cuts to services, facilities closed and resources stripped.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...s-obscene.html

http://www.theguardian.com/education...nts-jo-johnson

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10237191.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...sabled-6802010

The first few hits to 'disability cuts' on google ( don't you just love google?)

Doesn't even scratch the surface...

[joeysteele]

There should not be any faults at all in making sure people have their rights to what should be available for them and what they are genuinely entitled to.

The fact there are so many faults shows the policy has not been planned properly or that it is being enacted properly.

Great for the ones where all goes well but for those who it goes wrong for, it is massively stressful time to people who are already under great stress anyway,being vulnerable and stress too is of no assistance to people genuinely ill and disabled.

I love it when I come across a claim that gets done quickly,however, I find more and more having massive problems and lengthy delays too
Just because things maybe goes right for ,does not mean it is in any way right, and nor should it be, that for many, things go wrong and take far too much time to sort out.
To try to justify something being good when so much is going wrong, and people are being left with fewer and fewer outlets to get assistance with the problems too,is equally wrong in my view too.

The man responsible for it all is IDS and no wonder he gets jeers and shouts wherever he goes.
I rarely raise my voice to anyone, I doubt I could control that if I ever had the misfortune to come across him, from what I have seen as to the devastating effect of his heartless polices.

[Kizzy]

Britain's previously good record on housing was being eroded by a failure to provide sufficient quantities of affordable and social housing, the report said, with the result that "the structural shape of the housing sector has changed to the detriment of the most vulnerable". It called on the UK government to invest more in social housing.

The report did not hold back from documenting the combined impact of welfare reform and the housing crisis on vulnerable people, which Rolnik found on her visit had left many low income, disabled and homeless people in "tremendous despair".

And the heartless twonks dismiss this as diatribe

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...on-bedroom-tax

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Britain's previously good record on housing was being eroded by a failure to provide sufficient quantities of affordable and social housing, the report said, with the result that "the structural shape of the housing sector has changed to the detriment of the most vulnerable". It called on the UK government to invest more in social housing.

The report did not hold back from documenting the combined impact of welfare reform and the housing crisis on vulnerable people, which Rolnik found on her visit had left many low income, disabled and homeless people in "tremendous despair".

And the heartless twonks dismiss this as diatribe

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...on-bedroom-tax

And just WHERE pray tell, is all the billions needed to build ENOUGH housing going to come from? ESPECIALLY if we continue to SWELL the population by OPEN DOOR FREE FOR ALL IMIGRATION policies?

[Kizzy]

I know, don't build nuclear subs, build houses.

[Kizzy]

lly shouldn’t be writing a column this week. I’ve come down with a one-two punch of stomach flu and food poisoning and have spent the past 48 hours trying to keep my insides on the inside while the room spins suspiciously around me.

I’m obviously in no state to work. But the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would disagree. Between December 2011 and February 2014, 2,380 people died of a chronic or terminal illness shortly after being found “fit for work”. I doubt that it would make an exception for me and my norovirus. This is Tory Britain. You work until you collapse and then you work some more and you’d better be grateful. I’m just trying to move with the times.

The Conservatives speak of delivering a smaller state but they are more than happy to use the mechanisms of state to grind all the fight out of the poor. This is the state weaponised against the vulnerable, to make them believe that they are less than human. This is the welfare state twisted into a tool to separate human beings from their social conscience. Simply getting rid of the welfare state would have been easier and cheaper, but this way the Tories can persuade the most vulnerable in society to accept their fate and the rest of us to believe that they deserve it. That is why the benefits system is a moral hazard to us all, whether or not we are sick. The UN is right to investigate and the government and the public should listen before it’s too late.

Fantastic article
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...e-harms-us-all

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

lly shouldn’t be writing a column this week. I’ve come down with a one-two punch of stomach flu and food poisoning and have spent the past 48 hours trying to keep my insides on the inside while the room spins suspiciously around me.

I’m obviously in no state to work. But the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would disagree. Between December 2011 and February 2014, 2,380 people died of a chronic or terminal illness shortly after being found “fit for work”. I doubt that it would make an exception for me and my norovirus. This is Tory Britain. You work until you collapse and then you work some more and you’d better be grateful. I’m just trying to move with the times.

The Conservatives speak of delivering a smaller state but they are more than happy to use the mechanisms of state to grind all the fight out of the poor. This is the state weaponised against the vulnerable, to make them believe that they are less than human. This is the welfare state twisted into a tool to separate human beings from their social conscience. Simply getting rid of the welfare state would have been easier and cheaper, but this way the Tories can persuade the most vulnerable in society to accept their fate and the rest of us to believe that they deserve it. That is why the benefits system is a moral hazard to us all, whether or not we are sick. The UN is right to investigate and the government and the public should listen before it’s too late.

Fantastic article
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...e-harms-us-all

This was largely ignored by the media.

Now okay while it wouldn't be fair to say the deaths were caused only by being made to work in some way.
The one running element and therefore 'a' contributing factor to all the deaths was apparently that all had over the last year or so been declared fit for work and got work from the re-assessments done by the DWP.

Whatever else it is, it shows the cruel re-assessments are wrong because clearly these people ought not have been declared fully fit for work.
From whoever declared them to be so.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

lly shouldn’t be writing a column this week. I’ve come down with a one-two punch of stomach flu and food poisoning and have spent the past 48 hours trying to keep my insides on the inside while the room spins suspiciously around me.

I’m obviously in no state to work. But the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would disagree. Between December 2011 and February 2014, 2,380 people died of a chronic or terminal illness shortly after being found “fit for work”. I doubt that it would make an exception for me and my norovirus. This is Tory Britain. You work until you collapse and then you work some more and you’d better be grateful. I’m just trying to move with the times.

The Conservatives speak of delivering a smaller state but they are more than happy to use the mechanisms of state to grind all the fight out of the poor. This is the state weaponised against the vulnerable, to make them believe that they are less than human. This is the welfare state twisted into a tool to separate human beings from their social conscience. Simply getting rid of the welfare state would have been easier and cheaper, but this way the Tories can persuade the most vulnerable in society to accept their fate and the rest of us to believe that they deserve it. That is why the benefits system is a moral hazard to us all, whether or not we are sick. The UN is right to investigate and the government and the public should listen before it’s too late.

Fantastic article
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...e-harms-us-all

The VERY SAME THING was happening FOR YEARS under a LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

The VERY SAME THING was happening FOR YEARS under a LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

That's because there was a very fine line between the politics of our old Labour party and the present Conservative party.

[DemolitionRed]

I'm baffled as to why this debate has become just another hate campaign towards left wing politics. Are we suggesting that all of those in the protests had to be left wing? if so, how bizarrely ridiculous! Where the protesters not there because they feel they are being treated unfairly by PIP?. If so, they could be left right or middle, its irrelevant.

PIP is run on a for profits basis by shareholders and stakeholders in the Maximus empire. It was privatized by Neo-liberalist thinkers, which means it could of been privatized by the old Labour or the conservatives. Same meat different gravy.

Sad is the day when vocal protests are condemned in this country. When people can no longer voice their frustrations (loudly and stubbornly), then democracy has reached its end.

[DemolitionRed]

Maximus, part of the G1 multi billion dollar fortress are an American for-profit corporation that receives government contracts to provide "business process services" to government health and human services agencies.

Why was our welfare system sold down the river to this huge corporate giant? A company that don't have a good track record when it comes to delivering services efficiently and appropriately and who are known to of hurt many vulnerable families across America.

If we have to out-source then why not out-source to the Brits?
It would be interesting to research what ministers have shares in this company.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

The VERY SAME THING was happening FOR YEARS under a LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

Where are the reports to back that up, I think you will find not as many in any way were reported in such a short period as this period,were declared fit for work.

However Labour were wrong to bring in ATOS testing of the sick and disabled but the way that was extended,made more degrading and then targeted by the coalition Govt and still now this one, is a disgrace.

I don't think you will find from sources like welfare groups and the CAB anything like deaths on the scale in tis reporting of the issue.

Also just because it maybe happened too under Labour,that in no way exonerates the heartlessness and increased severity of the re-assessments brought in by this lot over the last 5+ years.

This is one thing I have to say I admired about UKIP in the election last year as they called for this extreme ATOS re-assessing of the sick and disabled to be scrapped altogether.
It should be in my view.

[bots]

I agree that the tories are coming across as lacking compassion. Its something they were accused of in their first term so they had every opportunity to put it right, if they so wished. They chose not to.

I dislike IDS intensely, and I think it was a major mistake to keep him in his role - no one to blame but Cameron for that. I think the basic principle of removing scroungers from the benefit bill is a good one, but not at the expense or to the detriment of the sick. However, I still do believe in the democratic process. If you don't like it make your views heard in local government and bi-elections

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I agree that the tories are coming across as lacking compassion. Its something they were accused of in their first term so they had every opportunity to put it right, if they so wished. They chose not to.

I dislike IDS intensely, and I think it was a major mistake to keep him in his role - no one to blame but Cameron for that. I think the basic principle of removing scroungers from the benefit bill is a good one, but not at the expense or to the detriment of the sick. However, I still do believe in the democratic process. If you don't like it make your views heard in local government and bi-elections

Good post

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I agree that the tories are coming across as lacking compassion. Its something they were accused of in their first term so they had every opportunity to put it right, if they so wished. They chose not to.

I dislike IDS intensely, and I think it was a major mistake to keep him in his role - no one to blame but Cameron for that. I think the basic principle of removing scroungers from the benefit bill is a good one, but not at the expense or to the detriment of the sick. However, I still do believe in the democratic process. If you don't like it make your views heard in local government and bi-elections

I agree to use the democratic process should be first and foremost,however results of by elections are dismissed usually because of low turnouts, the same with Council elections,a small turnout is considered unrepresentative of the voters at times too.
IDS is the most inaccessible of Ministers,I have seen lists of grievances and problems with facts,sent to him personally, which never get a response from him and usually have the conveying of something like,'those things shouldn't happen',
However they do happen and he lifts not a finger to stop them happening either and is always dismissive of the issues when raised.

I said after May's result last year, when Cameron was talking about being fair ad even compassion, the one sign of if he was serious about that, was if he moved or sacked IDS,I agree with you totally on that.
Once he left him in place I knew for the vast majority of genuine sick and disabled, more really bad times were coming.
Which they have.

So for someone like IDS who treats all with contempt he sees as beneath him, I can well understand the fury and anger directed at this truly awful politician, who for me should not be an MP at all, never mind a Minister with power over the most vulnerable in society.

[DemolitionRed]

Civil liberties include ‘freedom of expression’ but the rights to freedom of expression have been quietly eroded into something unrecognizable compared to what it was in the late 90’s.
.

In May 2015 Cameron told us all, “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society” and he’s right, we have been passively tolerant as our governments have eroded more and more of our rights to freedom of expression. The new gagging bills implemented by the coalition government took away our privilege to group and form peaceful protest, without jumping through various hoops of fire first and even then they may turn us down and tell us we simply can’t protest. If we go ahead regardless and take to the street in peaceful protest we can be assaulted by police water cannons, and Cameron will give his blessing.

I can come on here and moan all I like but if me and a couple of friends made placards about our civil rights being infringed and walked together through the streets of Surrey, we are breaking the law and will likely be arrested.

Our right to protest is vital if we want our democracy to function properly. The more we behave and accept these rapid moving new polices that take away our civil liberties, the more sheep like we become.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I agree that the tories are coming across as lacking compassion. Its something they were accused of in their first term so they had every opportunity to put it right, if they so wished. They chose not to.

I dislike IDS intensely, and I think it was a major mistake to keep him in his role - no one to blame but Cameron for that. I think the basic principle of removing scroungers from the benefit bill is a good one, but not at the expense or to the detriment of the sick. However, I still do believe in the democratic process. If you don't like it make your views heard in local government and bi-elections

How does any of the reforms facilitate this?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

The VERY SAME THING was happening FOR YEARS under a LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

I wouldn't mind seeing the evidence to back up this claim.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Civil liberties include ‘freedom of expression’ but the rights to freedom of expression have been quietly eroded into something unrecognizable compared to what it was in the late 90’s.
.

In May 2015 Cameron told us all, “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society” and he’s right, we have been passively tolerant as our governments have eroded more and more of our rights to freedom of expression. The new gagging bills implemented by the coalition government took away our privilege to group and form peaceful protest, without jumping through various hoops of fire first and even then they may turn us down and tell us we simply can’t protest. If we go ahead regardless and take to the street in peaceful protest we can be assaulted by police water cannons, and Cameron will give his blessing.

I can come on here and moan all I like but if me and a couple of friends made placards about our civil rights being infringed and walked together through the streets of Surrey, we are breaking the law and will likely be arrested.

Our right to protest is vital if we want our democracy to function properly. The more we behave and accept these rapid moving new polices that take away our civil liberties, the more sheep like we become.

Well said I 100% agree!

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I wouldn't mind seeing the evidence to back up this claim.

Well feel free to Google then, you're good at that. The Truth Is Out There.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

The VERY SAME THING was happening FOR YEARS under a LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

I'm not sure it was quite as bad under Labour actually, but I am happy to be proven wrong with figures and such? It is true though that Labour brought in the dreadful ATOS in the first place. However over the past few years it has gotten harsher and harsher...the stupid tickbox sheets and such that they work from have been endlessly tweaked in an effort to get people not to bother claiming what they are entitled to. Its just sick really. And what? For 1% of fraud? Pull the other one. The few that do manage to claim when they are not ill must have figured out how to get round the current system, while the genuinely deserving are crapped on from a great height.

Even so, it doesn't exclude the current government from blame when people are still dying days after their fit for work assessments today. Labour cannot do anything about it right now..I don't know if they would if they could...but Labour is rather irrelevant to what is going on TODAY, if the people in power had a conscience, they wouldn't be blaming the sick and disabled for the economical mess. Hell, they were even on about chopping carers allowance. What could be the possible need for that besides just wanting to be ****ing cruel? Carers save our country a hell of a lot of money and work much harder and a lot more hours than some people in paid employment.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

That's because there was a very fine line between the politics of our old Labour party and the present Conservative party.

Sadly true...

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Well feel free to Google then, you're good at that. The Truth Is Out There.

I am and it is, what you suggest isn't however as I highly doubt it is the truth in all fairness, not worth wasting my time.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I'm not sure it was quite as bad under Labour actually, but I am happy to be proven wrong with figures and such? It is true though that Labour brought in the dreadful ATOS in the first place. However over the past few years it has gotten harsher and harsher...the stupid tickbox sheets and such that they work from have been endlessly tweaked in an effort to get people not to bother claiming what they are entitled to. Its just sick really. And what? For 1% of fraud? Pull the other one. The few that do manage to claim when they are not ill must have figured out how to get round the current system, while the genuinely deserving are crapped on from a great height.

Even so, it doesn't exclude the current government from blame when people are still dying days after their fit for work assessments today. Labour cannot do anything about it right now..I don't know if they would if they could...but Labour is rather irrelevant to what is going on TODAY, if the people in power had a conscience, they wouldn't be blaming the sick and disabled for the economical mess. Hell, they were even on about chopping carers allowance. What could be the possible need for that besides just wanting to be ****ing cruel? Carers save our country a hell of a lot of money and work much harder and a lot more hours than some people in paid employment.



Sadly true...

Fantastic post Vicky, fair and balanced and also in my view spot on too.

I would also question the deaths element under Labour too,I cannot find any detailed reliable info as to that at all other than criticisms for Labour bringing in the ATOS company.

[Kizzy]

'The Court of Appeal has ruled that the so-called bedroom tax discriminates against a domestic violence victim and the family of a disabled teenager.
The ruling followed legal challenges by a woman who has a panic room in her home, and the grandparents of a 15-year-old who requires overnight care.
The removal in 2013 of what the government calls the spare room subsidy cuts benefits for social housing tenants with a "spare" room.
Ministers have said they will appeal.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) argued that it had given councils money to make discretionary payments to people facing hardship because of the policy change.
The case is now due to be decided in the Supreme Court.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government would "look very carefully" at the judgement. "But our fundamental position is, it is unfair to subsidise spare rooms in the social sector if we don't subsidise them in the private sector."
One of the cases - brought by a woman identified as "A" - concerned the effect of the policy on women living in properties adapted because of risks to their lives. Her home was equipped with a panic room.
The second case - brought by Pembrokeshire couple Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren - focused on the impact of the policy on disabled children needing overnight care.
The BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling would affect only people within these two specific groups - severely disabled children needing overnight care and victims of domestic violence living in specially adapted accommodation.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35418488?SThisFB