My last blog on the breakdown of the Usual Channels generated a torrent of comments on the Welfare Reform Bill. This is fine, indeed very welcome but as a result of organisations passing on my parliamentary e-mail address I have now received a torrent of messages to which I am simply unable to respond adequately and that jam up my e-mail in-box. I regret I have now put up a standard response on my e-mail site. So please, if you are thinking of commenting on the Welfare Reform Bill do it here on this site where everyone can see it. And please don’t tell me that Atos gets it wrong sometimes, I already know!
The ‘tests’ really are a transparent tool to simply deny benefits to nearly everyone claiming them. The doctors who ‘examine’ the ‘customers’ are employed to deny you the benefits for their monetary gain.
I write from experience, where the one I care for (who has long term ME/CFS) had to give up work due to stress and a very bad relapse. For those who know little about ME, let’s just say that many who have this ailment seriously deteriorate if stressed or when forced to do anything physical. Even a short walk can leave one bedridden for days if on a bad cycle. Yes, they may have the odd good day, but their lives become so erratic keeping a ‘normal’ job in check is impossible.
The assessing doctor (home visit) claimed many things; he claimed to be rather a specialist in ME/CFS, he also assured us that as far as he was aware, we had nothing to worry about in this test.
Needless to say, even after convincing ATOS of the requirement of a home visit, handing in not only doctor assessments, but qualified professional recommendations (from a professor studying the field with views to future funding and study) the assessment was FAILED with zero points awarded.
That, Baroness, is my definition of utter tosh.
As the one I care for is disabled, and not a complete idiot (although there will be many thousands who are not capable to achieve this due to the very ailment they are being assessed on, generally those suffering a mental condition or incapacitated to the point of near death or unconsciousness) the documentation was sifted through and after much fine print or obscurely disclosed procedural regulations, a simple phone call overturned this entire assessment outcome. No need for a tribunal, actually, jumping into an appeal/tribunal process may instantly put the disabled in a dire situation of having their monies stopped without warning and for the long term.
For those wondering what the correct way to assess those unable to work. What’s wrong with the GP assessment already available at no cost? Or a supplementary declaration by a specialist in the field, also available at no extra cost? And what about the actual person involved after these evidences, simply saying they know they are unable to work a ‘normal’ job. After all, it is THEIR life, not yours.
If that’s not enough, nobody is talking sense.
I know that you said that you wouldn’t be posting again Baroness, but as Webmaster of http://www.blacktrianglecampaign.org I’d like to know what on our website is nasty, inaccurate tosh with me standing by everything that is quoted on out website as fact.
Come on Baroness, what is there on our website that is inaccurate? You can’t make a statement like that on a public website without qualifying it.
Dear Baroness, would it also be possible for you to question Lord Freud, or even ask questions about his suitablility to be involved in the debate, or even the suitablility of his role as “Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Welfare Reform), Work and Pensions; Conservative”.
I find it rather odd, that a man, who has previously told outright lies about incapacity benefit and the people on it (such as wild un-evidenced and innacurate claims of massive fraud rates, such as that people on incapacity benefit are only ever assessed by their OWN doctors) is allowed anywhere near the area.
Is it not worrying to you as a upright, professional, that someone who can demonstrate such a profound lack of knowledge in a area they are writing a paper about for reform, who was widely critised, whose worked was officially stated as having no ‘evidence base’, who has basically promoted propaganda and lies against the sick and disabled, is allowed ANY WHERE near this debate?
It certainly worries me, rather a lot.
I would have thought, serious questions should be raised about this.
Or are the lords quite happy for man who has proven himself to be incompetant, and proven he is willing to lie about such a serious subject worthy of continuing in such an important role?
What do you think the public of this country deserve?
Truth? Honesty? Accountability? Serious issued being addressed?
Or do they deserve facts and history to be brushed under the carpet, and for people proven to be unsuitable to be allowed to play a major part in the future of the sick and disabled?
Its all documented, its all in the open, perhaps you were unaware, but not you are aware, I sincerely hope you will take the comments on board, and check for yourself, and do what you think is right for the country, and its vunerable.
Lord Blagger, the yearly contract for ATOS to do assessments is 100 million approx a year, the cost of benefit fraud on incapacity was at 20 million a year.
The cost of tribunals is around 50 million a year.
So 150 million a year, to combat, what 20 million a year fraud?
Thats running at a loss.
And failing to combat fraud I fear, as the assessments focus more on observations on the day than they do on medical evidence and facts.
So a faker can fake their way through the assessment, not needing to worry about not having much genuine evidence behind them.
The genuine, with solid evidence, are in a lottery as to how they appear on the day, and what the super secret software decides, and the honesty of the assessor, as well as the honesty of the decision makers.
Dear Lords,
Why can we not get the answers from the Freedom of INformation Act and Transparent Govt when it comes to Atos assessments and their affect on disabilities All such requests are banned, refused and blocked from the requests to the govt information site?
WHY??? If there was not something wrong going on? http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/breakdown_of_types_of_illnesses#comment-21676
How can a bill be moved through when the impact of its legislation and already in practice events have not been truely recorded and no one can get at or access the records which would show it true account. Atos WCA assessments have been going since October 2008 and problems have been evidenced and reported from the beginning and the evidence and personal and professional witness to devastating effects on people’s lives and the effects on thier care and benefits so all can and have been removed from months and for over a year up to 18 months while going through the appeal process, this is on top of of going through whatever illness of disability or deteriorating condition the person already has. The effects and devastation on different illnesses and conditions have already been recorded and individually witnessed to. Such as diabetics who have other conditions which make them incapacitated having their benefits removed to the point of not having sufficient income for adequate diet and having the upsetting consequences of having to have amputations due to septic areas and developing blindness and other organ failure, terminally ill cancer patients having everything removed and losing house, home, money and children as it has to be arranged for children to go into care due to parent not being able to support them in basic life needs any more. Income from disabled benefits which replace income does not just support the disabeld person but is there to supplement the income that supports the family. It is not just one person your support and feed and clothe and pay bills on very little £95pw £52pw or £31pw or no money per week but their dependents too. Have you thought of this, and if ESA and JSA is removed then automatically access to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit is removed too. So no income coming in but full rent needed and full council tax bill. as the council tax bill is then for the year then the full amount can be demanded. This is the state decisions have made and created.
This is on top of the poor administration and poor competence and adequate assessments of disabilties and illnesses. The Atos Healthcare reps say themselves that they do not care what the person’s medical condition is or how bad their situation, they do not care if a person has a leg injury, a leg ulcer or even an aortic venal ulcer (heart disease) as long as the person can walk they do not care if the exertion causes the injury to worsen, cause harm or even burst and cause death. They also admit they do not care in the situation of mental illness and mental distress if a person then goes on to harm themselves, others or even family members, work colleagues (I give the example of Derek Bird) or even a child is killed or harmed. This they admit to on taped audio tapes of their recruitment fair. It is very disturbing and very true, They do not care. How can these existing set up be OK and how can it be taken forward into something permanent when it has already caused so much harm.
One of the main problems and major areas in trying to make a decision is to get and access the relevant data and information. May it be in your Lord’s interest to know that the Freedom of Information Act does not cover the Atos assessments or how they affect the disabled who go through it. Many people have tried to access the information about their medicals, Atos assessments and information about how their area or family member’s area of illness or disability has been treated in going through the assessments. People have asked over and over again about similar cases going through Atos. The answer is that such information is priviliged and outside the public’s right to know. So people who have heart conditions, cancers, Parkinsons, strokes, MS. ME, Mental Illness and learning needs and severe learning needs and have been taken off their benefits and gone through hell, sometimes 3-4 and more times till their death have been constantly denied the information as to how Atos has overall treated their condition.
Even professionals and top consultants and specialists in their area are denied access to information regarding their area of expertise such as cancers, heart problems and neurological conditions and profounding serious conditions as to how Atos has affected and treated their patients.
Please take this into consideration. That if the public, disabled patient and professionals themselves cannot access the right information to inform their situation, protest, or specialist professional area, then how on earth can the Lords make a decision when no one else can get this information. Unless the lords be privy to information no one else has.
This is my recent request and post on What Do They Know to ask for information regarding types of illnesses and diseases, their outcome, numbers and consequences and re-calls. You will see that my request is denied even though other information is given. You will also see that another contributor Mr Taylor says he givee me acknowledgement for what I am doing and also confirms that the ability to access information of Atos from government about the most vulnerable in our society is blocked. He says that all such requests and the constant refusal, but the amounting evidence form independent gatherers of information and witness is noted and will be used.
The information is there. Atos and the government may deny access to the information which we should all have of how the disabled are being treated through this process. But those who are independent watcher and supporters and disabled, family and professionals have been gathering the evidence and witness. Why keep the information private and secret if there is no harm and nothing to be ashamed of?
Please stop this bill and suspend this until the auditing and accounting and counting of the disabled who have gone through this process has been done. This has been denied. It is your duty to insist on pursuing this evidence until you have the right information in your hands.
AA
Of course, in addition, which I keep forgetting. Severe disabilities and illnesses cannot get employment, not just because of their problem of working a normal hour day and consistently and not having time off. But because the employer cannot get employer/employee liability insurance. Certain conditions such as MS, Parkinsons, etc would not get work as their behaviour due to their illness would make them a liability and a health and safety hazard not just to themselves but to others and could be a danger to themselves, their colleagues to the work product and workplace and the employer would never be able to get them covered even if he wanted to. Even a little splip might mean a nice cup of sugary coffee over a computer keyboard. It is not possible to employ certain disabilities or conditions because of the inability to get employer liability. This really has not been fully worked out of looked at.
AA
It seems the campaign against the sick and disabled, has escalated to the point where even the GMC may become an agent of the state, and doctors may end up acting not in the patients best interest.
A doctor patient relationship should not include any political motives, a doctors duties should not be to further government agenda.
Since when has this country thought it acceptable that doctors should be ethically required to
“To encourage patients to stay in, or return to, work”
Because, that is the part of the wording of the new draft GMC guidance, which was developed with input from guess who – the DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND PENSIONS.
Since when has the DWP been in control of doctors?
Since when has this country made doctors act to do government wishes?
Hitler did that didnt he?
This is a disgraceful move, that shows the extent of how bad the campaign against the sick and disabled is becoming.
No doctor should ever be required to further political aims, thats not what the profession is about, and no doctor should ever be forced, as they would be if they have to give this advice to all patients, give advice that the doctor thinks could be harmful to the patient.
This is a national disgrace and should be taken into consideration when debating the bill, as to how far advanced the pressure against the sick and disabled is.
Because it comes to something, when government rhetoric and propaganda works its way into the sacred doctor patient relationship, and even may risk some peoples health.
Maude
Where you are off line is, you are blaming those who are needy.
No. You are offline in accusing me of this.
I’ll repeat, and an acknowledgement from you would be appreciated.
People who are disabled should get their extra costs met in full.
People who are able to work, should not get money for disability.
There is no blame to be attached for being disabled.
I for one do not subscribe to all the parties views for example on fat people, that they should be taxed for their choices. That is pinning blame on people.
That is my position. It is contrary to what you think my position is.
What you have made is a basic error in Logic.
I’m against people who are not disabled getting benefits. You read that and don’t see the bit about “not disabled”. If you’re dyslexic, it might explain that, but I doubt that is the case.
@LBlagger:
People who are not disabled do not get DLA. They have to ‘prove’ their disability beyond doubt.
If you are talking about those who, somehow, manage to pass themselves off as being disabled, via their GP and their hospital Consultant, then that is extraordinary and I don’t see how it is possible.
If you have a diagnosis and follow up with pathology tests, xrays, scans and so on, and the conditions are found to be in existence, then what are you saying? It is faked? Some people with broken limbs, cancer or what ever other terrible affliction they may have, do not all have the same affect. That does not mean that because one man, on one day, can just manage stand up and reach the door, that tomorrow he can do that as well. More likely, the effort of what he forced himself to do today will exacerbate his condition and make it impossible to even sit up the following and subsequent days.
Severe illness fluctuates on a daily basis. Today it can be said, I can lift my arms, but tomorrow they do not move at all. Do you resent the one day they have in fifty that they can lift their arms and as a result of that happy event, find thy should be thrown onto the street without food and a roof because of it. That is absurd.
As I have repeated, some expert lawyer group should be taking these cases to the European Court on Human Rights grounds.
But what troubles me more is, they can get our people to do this as a job. It smacks of the Hitler youth. And the Nazi’s. How did he get the people to do the things they did.
How can a civilized people become so horrendously callous overnight. Where does the mindset slide over from this is impossible to this is acceptable.
Only by creating an overwhelming sense of ill will. And this government is certainly working hard on and paying for that indignence.
What I have read here, about how much this official constant abuse is costing us all, as opposed to the cost of the so called fraud, is a difference of £130 million in loss to the tax payer. Now how is that acceptable to you? How does that make sense? And more, what does that do to the community in its spirit? It makes us simply one step away from putting kids up chimneys, or, using them as boy soldiers. That is what it does. It destroys the heart of a nation.
It removes the sense of decency we British people always had. It spreads like an aggressive cancer throughout the psyche of the population. And we end up with what we have now, hospitals manned by evil people who will not feed the sick, or, offer water to a dying man. And to the inhuman treatment of the senile and mentally ill. And with those who do these most disgraceful acts being allowed to stay hidden and never be punished for their crime.
Is that what you want for our country? Is that what you want for mankind? Because that is what happens when society endorses such offensive behaviour as this.
You see, I am of the belief that those who promote such horror, are made directly responsible for the monstrous policies that provoked this kind of reaction. And it always always comes from the top. So those at the top should be personally accountable for the consequences of such a mandate. Because this is brought about by commercializing abuse. Paying out our tax money to private companies whom they know abuse the vulnerable and set them up for mental torture. Our government pay them on how many they reject for benefit and that brings a pre-selective bias. They are only paid to fail them.
What a disgrace. And you should hang your head in shame for supporting such a business.
—>http://www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/cresr-woib-report-2010.pdf
Tell me about the 430,000 women who are under the disguised employment, or the 125,000 single mothers on ICB. All who shouldn’t be.<—
A two year old document colated by a University? As Leeds University wrongly claim there are 6 million carers (financed by Carers UK) it is as believeable as David Cameron knowing what ordinary people's lives are like!
You can make ANY reseach read ANY WAY you want it. Do you really think people are that stupid Lord Blagger?
Oh, and using an alias stops you being taken seriously. So what is your real name?
Forget the tag – that’s been explained.
Will you address the issue instead of trying to excuse people claiming benefits when they shouldn’t.
For example.
Has the general health of the UK got worse by 300%?
Why 300%?
Well that’s the increase in the claimants for IB.
Now, since IB is an entitlement based on NI contributions, if the number of people paying NI had tripled, it would be reasonable. However it hasn’t.
Now it is clear, and the research shows it, that there should be an increase in the number of women claiming IB, because their proportion of the workforce has gone up, and that is the case. But its far from 300%
Now when you look at men. No longer working in dangerous industries because they have gone. However, numbers claiming have escalated.
SO its back to the conclusion, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, that a lot of those claiming IB are there for political reasons. ie. They aren’t unemployed.
Is there any other evidence for this?
Yes. The number not turning up for assessments, presumably in most cases because they have realized they can’t claim any more, or perhaps, were even frauds, and in the number being reject.
So it’s not me that’s being stupid. It’s those that haven’t worked out what has been going on. Add up the claims since Maggie pushed people from unemployment to IB, and its not millions, its not tens of millions, it’s not hundreds of millions, it’s not billions, or even tens of billions. It’s hundreds of billions.
So now since governments have run up 7,000 billion of debts, Maddoff’ed off the books, its not surprising that even people who need the money are being hit.
So Clive when I look at your post, I see no evidence. Nothing but an attempt at kicking the man, not the ball.
Who is Lord Blagger? Who indeed? Maybe someone who just wants to hone and sharpen your sapier. For like C S Lewis’s tutor he wants you to get your argument straight. So to beat him you must beat every man and every man’s argument.
And get the argument as to why someone would want to listen to your argument and take it on in the first place? There might be an assumptions already being made that your interests are automatically their interests. Do not assume or the unprepared for response will shock, annoy and anger you and bite you in the bum of your most greatest needs and values and intensity of feeling and righteous indignation. Then you will just scream, and people will automatically despise you. So British, unfortunately. It is not the scream but the discomfort it gives to others.
If you need to win your need to win every arguement and need to get yourself honed through ever argument, every prejudice and every self interest. If you get through Blagger maybe you would get through the rest. But then who can get through a Blagger? Not for nothing does he choose his name.
Here is his profile description:
ABOUT ME
LORD BLAGGER
If you need consultancy on how to cream it as a MP, or a Lord, get in touch. Trouble with all those embarassing expenses? Get in touch and let an expert in the matters help you with your problems. lordblagger @ googlemail.com
Here is a cartoon beloved by him:
Non Sequitur Comic Strip, September 02, 2010 on GoComics.com
Spot on. Sign up with Lord Blagger, and jump the queue at the Lobbyist entrance
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2010/09/02/
and his profile description. If you cannot see his wry sense of humour and proposed proposition of purpose. You are an idiot.
But then he may just be like all blaggers. Not much far removed from the dodgy dealer on the corner psk psking and saying how he cd get your this or get you that and half a gram of this and half and ounce of that. and get you into this and get you into knowing the right people and into the right places where you would meet even more dodgier characters just like him on the make. psk psk. “I’ll do you a deal, but you are going to have to get through me first.” Sloughing off like George Coleman’s spiv “Flash Harry” with the music and dodgy limp going after him. Whistling the dodgy Laurel and Hardy spivvy tune through the halls and corridors of westminster as Dodgy Lord Blagger walks past.
AA
AA
And if you don’t get satire, try reading up on what Truscot and his mates were up to.
In January 2009 Truscott was the subject of corruption allegations in the Sunday Times, along with three of his Labour colleagues. He was accused of seeking a £72,000 fee to help two people posing as lobbyists “amend a government bill that was harmful to their client”, saying he would have to “be a ‘bit careful’ and could not table the amendment himself.”
ie. Attempting to selling changes to legistlation for cash.
Not a criminal offence, and the Lords have no intention of making it one.
Blagging? It’s what the Lords do.
Keep on topic! What remotely is the connection between this and the Welfare Reform Bill? Nothing. The Lord of the Blogs site cannot afford to be bogged down by repetitious inputs by a small group of obsessives.
So do you class the people being targeted by the welfare reforms as “a small group of obsessives” Dan? Or shouldn’t a more accurate term be “service users”?
If any of the Lords who will (no doubt) pass the bill regardless of concerns by disabled people and their carers (another group that will be hit by these cuts, because that is all the welfare reform bill is really) really wants to engage with the people that will be hit in the most savage way any government that I can remember then they should take on-board EVERY concern by ANY group no matter how small- in fact the Lords could be classed as “a small group” in comparison to the number of disabled people that will suffer at the hands of the ConDems.
If the Lords are genuine in their concern for fairness then they need to read places like this http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewcategory/1/
A website and forum run by professional welfare rights officers.
Or this article
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Families-face-Third-World-winter.6848488.jp
followed by this http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/latest-news2/campaigns/its-eat-or-heat-this-winter
FTR, I have no association with the Black Triangle group, I admire their spirit as I did something similar for carers a while ago, but the BT group have a couple of members I would never want anything to do with.
If the Lords pass the WRB then it should hang it’s head in shame as it will have sold out the most vulnerable people in society in order to save a few quid
No, my “small group of obsessives” is not the target group of these welfare reforms but certain bloggers (or blaggers) on this site who hog the cyberspace with their comments.
Apologies for any probs with my writing forget to mention the severe mental impairment and several strokes that cause displacement of words and phrases and sentences while still writing them. All good fun while it is in fact NOT!
Blagging? It’s what the Lords do.
HaHa.
Meanwhile, I have and urgent case among many today and one I would like to highlight to let your Lord’s know how those with a sweet nature, a pleasant soul and an uncomplaining and long suffering nature due to long term pain and disability and incapacity can be so dreadfully and sadistically treated by the current practices of the Welfare Reform Bill – before it comes in;
A girl/young woman in home counties, Buckinghamshire. I sufferer of unexplained brain haemoraghing. She has constant pain, cluster headaches, blindness, excessive migraines and it causes severe cognitive and mental difficulties. She cannot even read around a blog or advice site or forum to see what people say and look for advice. There is no right to support or legal aid and CAB are being cut back. most are getting their support through mutual support and trying to find ways to advocate and act for each other. So she has a friend called Jimi who stands up for her but also like a man is angry and does not believe how she can be judged fit to work and put in a Work Related Ability Group. This is on top or trying to manage her difficult day and headaches and partial blindness and cognitive problems. I must reiterate many very disabled people and very cognitive and mentally impaired people are getting round the problems and difficulties of the Atos WCA ESA Welfare Reform Programme and do and present and better argument and presentation than most Lords and self serving MPs. So please let her following communication to me today sink into your heart.
Debbie: Hi
Thanks for the link.
Rang DWP at Cosham this morning. Got a stupid rude foreign woman and I just could not believe her attitude and lack of knowledge – also think she should learn to speak English properly lol. I ended up being rude to her because of her attitude but she told me she would get somebody to call me back within an hour – think she wanted to get rid of me cos I was ranting on about lying ATOS doctors! She ended up saying ‘I will get somebody to call you back within the hour, goodbye’. An hour ended up being about 3 hours but I got a call from a lovely lady.
A lady called me who was a DM and we chatted for over half an hour. She said she has been on leave and she will be looking at my file this afternoon and sending me a letter out. It’s a big file. She has briefly read mine and Jimi’s letters. She told me that it’s quite difficult to get put in Support group but she will try and put me in it – think she needs to get me another 15 points? She said I scored very highly at the medical but not enough for Support Group. I told her all about the lying doctor and she listened. She was very interested in the fact that he had omitted the fact that I had my symbol cane with me and never mentioned I was partially sighted on the medical report. Also how he had put that I have frequent thoughts of self harm – told her that I have never ever had any intention of it. I said to her that he has had 6 weeks of training in assessing disabled people so how dare he make judgement on whether I am fit for work. Said I am treated by one of the leading headache consultant’s in the country and he has said I must not work so a ATOS doctor cannot go against that. Also told her that he had lied about my eye test – said he cannot overrule what a qualified ophthalmologist has said anyway and I am registered partially sighted. Dr also said I read an N12 print cared and I NEVER! He said I was sweating and agitated at my medical and I wasn’t. I told her that I understand that she is under strict guidelines about whether she can put me in the support group but I will appeal if I am not put into it and I went into a bit of a rant. I told her that they are disgusting and are ruining disabled and sick people’s lives. I told her all about JImi doing the Power Point presentation and what he is going to do with it and she said she would do the same fi it was her! She did say that I may only have to go to the Work Focus Interview once and then they will leave me alone when they know I cannot work. I will not be placed on JSA after a period of time. She also said that if she’s not able to put me in the Support Group then I may get put in it if I appeal. She is going to sit down and go through my letters and file this afternoon with somebody else and said she’ll send me an appeal form if she can’t put me in the Support Group. I actually did get the impression she knows what’s going on but could not say too much to me. She would not have listened so much to me if she didn’t know what they are and how much they stitch people up. I thanked her very much for taliking to me and she said it was nice to speak to me and thanked me.
Will now have to wait to see what letter I get in the next couple of days. I did get the impression that she will do her best for me. Was very surprised to actually speak to a DM. Do you know anybody that’s every spoken to a DM? Am so glad I called because I really feel I said my piece about to somebody that matters.
Debbie x
There are some fantastic people out there beyond the edge of reason and the savage hells of pain who can still stand up and try and do things and change things. This is not the only one. One MS in the third middle stage of incapacity got knocked out for 4 days and did not make a meeting. the DWP sent a letter 2nd class knowing it wd arrive past the date, and on top of that she was having a bad time where she is knocked out for a few days with high pain killers and when she woke up although still incapacitated and cannot get out she has been taken off JSA. That is right a MS sufferer in the middle to late part of the ilness is deemed fit for work, has to attend work groups and search and go for interviews and struggle back, no matter what although she has no food no heating and no money at times for weeks due to their cock ups and even then the lowest £31pw to cover everything She is cut off from all money and from that all housing and Council Tax benefit and the day after got a demand for Council Tax for over £800.
Please my Lords, take note. This is how we live even those who have served their country well before and taken care and supported their family and children. and in regard to the MS, as soon as her partner heard she had MS he did not support her, he did not comfort her. He hit her the following day and called her a stupid #### and that he was leaving her now she was going to be so much trouble. and since illness she sufferers violence and bullying from her neighbours. and abuse of disabled is not a criminal offence it is a civic offence so police do not have to act or respond.
In your satire, please take note. Not everything is funny.
I hope you make your choice and make the right choice.
I will go off and do what I can do, but so one of many, and these things would not happen if we did not have a system in which it happens and where it will be in even greater numbers in the future. 1.8 million without feedback as to what happened next is enough.
Extension of Debbie’s message and today’s update. Understand she is in terrible pain and distress and a serious medical neurological condition and both her specialist and GP have emphasised that she should not and could not work. All have been ignored
Hi Aunty
Got bad news in the post yesterday! Even after the long chat I had with the DM on Friday about the lying doctor and the letters that Jimi and I sent asking to change their decision and put me in the Support Group, they will not change their decision and I am to remain in the WRAG Group. I even sent a letter from my neurologist which states that he has told me that he has told me that I must not return to work and that my condition is unlikely to change in the near future. He only deals with my cluster headaches and migraines! They have a copy of my CVI Partially Sighted Certificate and so much medical evidence. I even have a letter from my consultant saying that it is not safe for me to travel on my own and that I need an escort because I experience auras/hallucinations which impair my vision – that was written before I was registered as partially sighted! I have other medical problems too but these are irrelevant, I really think what I have mentioned is enough lol.
You seem to be the only person that I know that has real knowledge about ESA and I was wondering if you think it is worth all the effort and stress of trying to get put into the Support Group? I think I will have to go to a Tribunal if I appeal their decision. I was wondering if you have any documents you could send me please that lists the criteria for the Support Group. The DM told me on Friday that only very special cases get put into the Support Group. Jimi is going to have to act for me at the Tribunal as there is absolutely nobody in Milton Keynes at the CAB or at any other organisation that can help me.
I am going to London on Monday for 4/5 days for my headache treatment so if you recommend I do appeal, I will not do anything until I come out of hospital. Am getting stressed already about going in hospital so just don’t want to start having to do letters and things. Of course, I will be taking computer with me. The days are so long and boring in hospital and they get me up so early for treatment and then I can’t go to bed til late either cos of treatment.
Saw my GP yesterday and she was absolutely shocked by what I told her about my medical and the lies the doctor had told about me. She knew a bit about ATOS but I told her quite a lot and she was disgusted. She has not seen the Training Manual and I’m going to print it off and drop it in the surgery so she can have a look through it and show her colleagues.
Look forward to hearing from you. x
This has made me cry..and feel very hopeless. WHY is this happening? Any LORD,LADY. Or MP with a heart would put a stop to all of this right now!!.
I beg you to forward this letter to all Lords, Im in fear the Baroness Murphy will not be reading this, However Baroness Campbell seems to be taking a keen interest.
Here are some links you may be able to copy this heartfelt letter to
http://t.co/8h89PrgF
http://www.abcofesa.co.uk/board/index.php
http://thebrokenofbritain.blogspot.com
Kind regards.
people do care, I for one am absolutely ashamed of the way we are persecuting the sick and disabled right now and will fight with all my might till death on this.
They aren’t going to. There is no money left, and they still want their cut.
Have you worked out how much one peer for one day costs the taxpayer?
It’s over 2,000 pounds.
That’s why they haven’t enough for IB.
I really tired and exhausted.
I think I will go to bed and lie and down and if I am lucky perhaps not wake up.
Did the Barroness actually attend the debate about the bill on the 4th?
Did not see any comment from her on the transcript of the proceedings?
Can the people in the bill debate, also not be fobbed of by re-assurances, seeing as we the people on the recieving end of them, have had reassuranes countless times before, countless promises, countless times we have beeen told things will improve etc.
Yet they never have.
Each time, things get worse.
Why are questions not being asked, as to why all the previous re-assurances given in previous debates and bills etc were not upheld?
Why are the same companies, and people whose re-assurances were not upheld, still being believed when they (as no doubt they will) offer reassurances yet again?
Does anyone know, if the public are allowed to attend the bill debate, and if they are also allowed to speak up and contribute if they hear a mistruth or misleading statement being made?
I have lost count of the number of times, and Im sure many others feel the same, that I have read the transcript, and thought, that answer does not stand up to even the remotest amount of scrutiny, yet in the debates, often answers are not scrutinised, its as though the members literally believe every word people say, without checking, or doubting it.
Odd, considering the baroness admits to treating reports she is sent with sceptisicm, why is the same sceptic nature not applied to people like Lord Frued, who after all, has shown himself in public to have no qualms in lying about the facts, making things up, and helping to stigmatise and promote more hatred against those on sickness benefits.
Why are questions not being asked about UNUM’s involvment?
Why, is the future of the sick and disabled, being rushed through parliament, when its clear to the public, the full facts are not available, that the DWP fail to collect the required statistics (such as detailed breakdowns of claims/conditions/outcomes etc), that even the people in the debate are denied access to have the software examined properly (as are the public).
Why are questions not being asked about why a known failing system, should be copied for hte dla to pip moves?
Why are questions not being asked, why the esa system was based on a made up fantasy from the likes of Frued, and why the UNUM system of disability assessment was copied for the pca?
Why did the lords accept that the harrington review would act as a safeguard to review the system, when harrington himself has made it CLEAR in public, that his review is not concerned with saying if the system is FIT FOR PURPOSE or not, because that, and whether it should be scrapped or not, is purely a political decision?
Also, why are questions not being asked about the moves by ATOS to censor websites?
Just when you think you are safe…. I won my appeal for ESA on the 23rd of August and got put in the WRAG group as I have stated before. I’ve just been sent for interviews for jobfit, which I have to do next Monday. If that isn’t stressful enough, this morning another ESA50 form has been posted through my letterbox. They don’t even give you any breathing space. My stress levels have now gone up through the roof. For someone with social anxiety problems and anxiety in general, to have to go out to interviews and now worry about ATOS all over again………. I’m in a living nightmare and I don’t know how I’m going to cope. Something has to change!!! There’s no consistency to any of it.
@Shazzyrm:
The first change you can make, depending on your state of health of course, is to have them come to your home for the assessment and have a witness or two, of standing, attend on your behalf.
Another sensible idea is either record what is said and asked of you or film it. Of course you must let them know you are doing this.
Harassment is illegal. And should you be ‘harassed’ you can then approach a law practice who specializes in these complaints.
Thank you Maude, that sounds like a very good idea and you are quite right, I do feel like I am being harassed right now. How are you supposed to get better if you’re not allowed to?
If you let an atos assessor know you are recording, you would think they would have no problems with it, in fact a medical union has even recommended that there members should not object to patients recording them.
But its not the case, if you turn up on the day and tell them you are recording (even if its for medical reasons such as poor memory, or due to previous incorrect reports/lies) then they will halt the medical, and your benefits will STOP.
You will also NOT BE PAID whilst appealing due to non-compliance.
If you try to arrange recording before hand, the standard response, is you must comply with rules that are stricter than the PACE police rules of evidence, stricter than how the police record things in murder interviews.
You have to have a professional double deck recording machine, professionally calibrated by a qualifed professional, immediately prior to the assessment.
Both ATOS and the Assessor must agree to the recording.
Reports show, that even when someone did eventually (as it is out of the cost bracket for the vast majority of claimaints) meet the technical requirements regarding hiring a trained professional for the period, and the equipment, the assessor simply refused to give consent.
They did have a recording trial, but you can bet your bottom dollar the findings from that will indicate that recording should not be allowed in future, perhaps the lords could clarify that point.
Even when you have been allowed to record, under the trial for example, I can confirm that in some cases (mine for example) you are forced to sign a document waiving your legal rights, a document that attempts to pervert the cause of justice.
The document only allows you to submit the evidence for the direct purpose of obtaining the benefit in question.
This means it prohibit things such as (but not limited to)
Exposing a public interest concern (legally) to the media.
Submitting evidence to the regulatory body, such as the GMC or NMWC.
Submitting evidence to a court, the police, or other authority or regulatory body for investigation into any wrong doing.
You can only submit the evidence to the DWP, your advisors, welfare rights etc and a benefit tribunal.
Its a clear attempt to pervert the cause of justice, and I regard it as a crime.
What do you think Baroness Murphy?
I think things like this is the way to go.
Start recording. If they refuse, get them to say the refuse to assess you.
Note, this isn’t the same as the question the other way round.
It’s the same with all government. Record what they say. It’s a game changer.
For example, on recording phone conversations.
1. If A rings B. A can record what is said. A doesn’t not have to tell B.
2. A has to have B’s permission to release that recording to C.
3. C cannot record a conversation between A and B. That’s the equivalent of taping. It is also inadmissible in court as its hearsay.
Now, as soon as there is an Android, or a iPhone app, its a major changer.
Government can’t cope with it. Just like when it comes to the law it can’t cope with DNA for paternity.
In addition to the recording offically route, you can approach it via covert recording, whereby you secretly record without telling them.
This is 100 percent legal, absolutely above board, and within the law.
As for wether a tribunal will accept the evidence, that is up to the individual tribunal panel themselves.
There is nothing actually stopping them from doing so, but they could chose not to accept it if they wish.
There is some case law supporting its use though, and covert recordings have been allowed in a tribunal before.
Pleasehelpus
I totally agree about covert recording, I advise anyone who has an Atos assessment to do just that, I also personally record any telephone conversation I have with anyone from the DWP, JobCentrePlus, Atos etc, I also copy anything sent to me, send anything to the DWP,JobCentrePlus, Atos by special delivery, recorded post, these people cannot be trusted whatsoever.
The pilot study into the viability of recording assessments has taken place, the whole pilot was in my opinion a total farce.
As you have stated, they have said in the past one needs to provide a twin deck tape machine and a qualified engineer to work it, I have found this document which puts some light on how Atos want to conduct assessments and with what type of equipment.
http://issuu.com/atosvictims/docs/audio_20recording_20pilot
As you will notice, it seems Atos thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to use a handheld digital recorder?
I would be shocked If a decision is made to provide recordings of all assessments, Atos and the DWP are too affraid as to what may come out, hope the document is useful…
Convert recording works. You get their evidence for the tribunal. Then you let them know its been recorded. They then panic.
All you have to do is get a transcript produced. You then use that. It can be vouched that its accurate.
In addition, claimaints assessed for IB or ESA are not offered a copy of the medical report before it is sent to the decision maker.
GMC guidance clearly states they MUST BE offerede a copy before it is sent to the decision maker.
ATOS have refused to comply with this in my case, and have never offered a copy.
They say it is not required that they do so.
Well, perhaps the lords can address the issue of the fact that every assessment ATOS has conducted by a doctor for ESA or IB where the claimaint has not been offered a copy of the medical report before it is sent to the decision maker is clearly breaking GMC rules, and therefore unethical, and breaking legislation that assessors must conduct a assessment in line with their regulatory bodies rules.
The NMWC confirmed that they expect the same to, for a copy to be provided should the claimaint ask for one at the time.
This was sent (with supporting evidence) to the harrington review also – although I wonder if it will be covered, as a lot of the points I raised last year seemed to get ‘lost’ and were not covered at all in his report.
If it is ‘buried’ and the lords do not address such a major point, then its clear to me at least, that something very corrupt is going on.
Is it possible you could send me the details about the GMC & NMWC, the links to both If possible, I may have some use for that info?
you can contact me at
atosvictimsgroup@gmail.com
Perhaps the lords (ps no offence to ladies/barons/baronesses, when I say lords I am just referring to everyone in the debate) could ask why if ATOS admit to health and safety concerns (such as problems evacuating in a fire in some assessment centers) and also lack of disablity access/parking/facilities in some others, why they are allowed to continue operating?
Is the LIVES AND SAFETY of the workers, and the claimaints not important?
Perhaps if this is not addressed as a matter of urgency, someone should ring up health and safety, and the fire brigade and arrange assessments of the risk, and they can decide wether to shut the place down or not, or prosecute etc.
Because they, unlike the government and ATOS seem to take the lives and safety of people very very seriously.
Perhaps the lords could also re-ask ATOS why they are feared and loathed, and NOT accept the silly answer that its because the disabled do not understand the process.
In general we understand perfectly what the process is, what the design is, we are NOT fools.
That answer, does not stand up to scrutiny Im afraid.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/07/disability-poverty-welfare-cuts
Four in 10 disabled young people in England are living in poverty, amounting to a “staggering” 320,000 children. And the figure will rise because of government cuts to welfare payments, according to a report by The Children’s Society.
+++++++++++++
Bob Reitemeier, chief executive of the Children’s Society, said: “These findings are staggering and very worrying. It seems that all forms of support for disabled children are seriously hampered when families live on a low income. Hidden costs, such as transport, heating and learning aids, are forcing more disabled children and young people and their families into poverty.
The bill is a disgrace, DLA more or less “works” and doesn’t need changing. Target those that caused this financial crisis we are in NOT the most vulnerable people in society.
This government makes me ashamed to be British
@DanFilson.
My apologies for my misuderstanding what you meant
I am very surprised Baroness Murphy has withdrawn from the debate on this blog.
I would add that facts speak for themselves and that I find it hard to believe that Baroness Murphy does not know the truth of the situation.
These matters affect the lives of many disabled and vulnerable people and families. I think that Baroness Murphy is doing a great disservice to people by not doing her duty, and by failing to engage in this debate with people.
It is somewhat insulting that Baroness Murphy’s comments demonstrate that she has not taken on board people’s comments and real-life experiences.
Does Baroness Murphy consider her position so weak that it will not withstand debate?
I have to admit I found it a bit of a surprise for someone to post an invitation to discuss the welfare reform bill and then to announce that they no longer wish to comment on it.
It just goes to show what a mess the whole system is in. The very fact that the DWP are sending letters out to the vulnerable and disabled about losing Contribution ESA before the bill has even been pushed through, shows just how confident they are in getting their own way regardless of how we, the people, feel. Something isn’t right here.
NB: Today – disabled respondents complain about being forced to undergo body searches and searches of their belongings and bags when they go into Atos assessments as Atos do not want them to take in recording devices. So many complain about Atos lying about what they have said or not said, of hurting and harming them, of women and sex abuse victims and adult child victims being asked inappropriate and indepth questions about their sexual life, sexuality and their abusive event. Causing disgust, distress and breakdown, victims say they feel they have been raped and abused again. All healing of their abuse destroyed. The problems have been raised but denied. some have taped interviews and proven what has gone on. Also many conditions need the person to record and remember as their condition such as brain injury, severe mental illness, ME stroke and onset of early dementia mean they should be able to record it.
Can I ask what your policy is of disabled being forcefully body searched and bags searched? Do we all lose our rights and dignity and expectations of common decency because of this bill. Like processing and sectioning blacks and jews under apartheid or the Holocaust. It is disgusting. Disabled like meat to be poked, packed and despatched.
AA
AA
Could you possibly direct me to where you found this information, I would be very interested?
This is obviously illegal in my opinion, If Atos are forcing people to have body searches or refusing to assess people without first having a body search or their bags etc searched then people should refuse, it is not acceptable to be treated in this way whatsoever.
Anyone attending an Atos assessment should put in a formal complaint, stating that they were Physically assaulted, bring in the police.
It seems it is not only ATOS.
A friend of mine who is disabled, and has sustained added injury due to an RTA several years ago, had his DLA stopped. He is unable to work.
He had been in receipt of this for some time. When it stopped, he received no notification. This caused him severe financial hardship.
He had to re-apply and was turned down. He went for an interview. He went with another friend of his, who has since said that they treated him with no respect – even implying that he was lying. He described their attitude and words as ‘treating him like an animal’.
He is not a liar. I have known him for years. He used to work and earn very good money, even after his accident. However, when his disability got worse, he could not work anymore.
He is significantly worse than he used to be and cannot even walk 50 yards without help. I do not understand how he could be refused DLA.
This is becoming an all too common story. I have heard many similar experiences from people I meet at disability groups and on-line.
These agencies and companies such as ATOS are trying to root out the fakers, workshy and scroungers – which is fair enough.
However, in the process they are also turning down people who are genuine and, like my friend, have a severe disability. These are people that are entitled to that money.
These directives come from Government. This is simply unacceptable and disgraceful conduct.
I would urge anyone attending such a meeting, interview or assessment to take a friend or friends. If you are treated badly in any way, write a letter to lodge a formal complaint – ensuring that someone has to sign for the letter upon receipt.
Send a letter to your MP and neighbouring MPs, as well as opposition MPs in your area. Contact the CAB and write to relevant bodies in the EU and at the UN explaining your experiences.
Above all, contact and consult a solicitor or free legal surgery to get legal advice for your specific situation and experiences.
Do not just sit back and take it. I have seen first-hand now just how many genuine people are being denied what they are entitled to and how they are being treated by these organisations.
Thank you.
Absolutely disgusting no-one should be treated in such a way it beggars belief that the Government of this country would condone such behavior from their employees.
Perhaps, if people wish to understand Baroness Murphies comments a lot more, they should read her previous blog post entitled
Legitimate Legislation
Link here
http://lordsoftheblog.net/2011/08/26/legitimate-legislation/
where she talks about ‘lifestyle choices’ co-ercion, forcing people to work, minor injuries etc.
Its very telling, and sheds a lot of light on her views I feel.
I fear, its also all so wrong in my opinion, but what do the views of the disabled matter, it seems we chose to be this way, with a minor injury or condition, and we are forced by the system to remain ill, and should be co-erced into work, and should have our expections changed.
Really, words are failing me after reading that blog post of hers.
Can Baroness Murphy ask the lords to ask ATOS if LIMA has any information in it about Cello Scrotum?
For those who are unaware…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5601050.ece
The news today from the world that has been evaluating and living with the Welfare Reform Bill – the disabled – is that the information and personal histories and intimate details of the disabled and carer’s and even child’s life is being opened and read by the Royal Mail Postman who sorts the mail. Contrary to the expectations of confidentiality of patient and practitioner and any official department working with a person’s confidential and personal details. their information is open to be read by any one and the layman post office worker. Atos and DWP already practice the practice of having access to a person’s medical history and documents and being able to share it and pass it around to who they see fit.
Our lives are not our own but the most personal details and intimate and history is open to all insundray. Again Atos argues that it is outside the expectations of patient and healthcare because the person in a claimant and customer not a patient. so the rules and expectations of patient confidentiality do not apply.You will never repair the damage that has been done through this.
This was found out through a request to the Freedom of Information government site. See following:
Well, I’m sure you’re also aware how tricky it is to get a look at your own medical notes. Or how careful doctors always are not to share your personal information with anyone. Or how many checks are in place to guarantee our data is secure.
Now, it comes to light (FOI request) that once your ESA50 form speeds on it’s way to the day of reckoning, it will be opened first in a royal mail sorting office, bundled into relevant piles and only then sent on to the correct department.
Yep, Fred the postman, spotty young Fred, 19 (interests : arse jokes and medieval platform games) gets to open your form, the form you agonised over, blushed as you wrote, perhaps cried tears over, smudging the words.
Perhaps he is a responsible young man who simply opens your private, medical evidence, looks at the address and bundles up the papers.
Or perhaps, he is a little thoughtless. Perhaps he shouts to Pete over the way and they guffaw at your bowel habits or mock your spasticity. Either way, surely the point is that no-one should see these forms but the person who wrote them and the decision maker who will consider them?
There is nothing on the form to say this happens, no disclaimer warning you. If it is legal (which I find incredibly hard to believe) then surely it is not moral? Surely it breaks every code that medical professionals try to follow as they safeguard our intimate medical secrets?
I imagine ministers will tell us that it is “standard procedure” that no-one reads the details. Is that the point?
If this is the line they take, then perhaps they would consider writing a 1000 word account of the most embarrassing or traumatic event of their entire lives and allowing me to pass them round my local pub? No-one will read them, honest, we’ll just pas them round and leave them in a pile at the end.
No? Thought not.
The government is guilty of attempting to suppress welfare reform bill opposition in the Lords by pushing the Welfair Bill through the Grand Committee rather than giving it the proper discussion it requires.
The is a particular element of the bill which will have considerable impact on disabled son (cerebral palsy) who lives in a car home, ie Included in the bill are proposals to remove the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance from state funded care home residents, the most vulnerable of all. In such circumstances mobility allowance is used to fund accessible transport. This could be a motability car, but is often accessible taxis or specialist wheelchairs. Removing this payment would see care home residents virtual prisoners and those who use wheelchairs confined to bed. This is a long way from protecting the vulnerable.
My son uses a car to get to hospital appointments, visit family and holidays, etc. Though the care home does have transport, there is not sufficient resource to cover individual needs, of my son or the other residents.
Quite simply I have lost faith in Government and that in reality they not listening to either the individual or the representations being made by organisations like Scope.
Peter Ongley
Peter Ongley: How does taking a Bill for Committee stage in Grand Committee deny the Bill proper scrutiny?
Because What’s most disturbing is the difference in the way peers will be able to scrutinise the bill. If a bill passes through the main committee it involves detailed, line by line examination, every clause of the bill must be agreed to and votes on amendments take place. However, in a grand committee there is no voting on amendments and the committee must agree unanimously, which leaves room for just one peer siding with the government to derail the process.
Peter Ongley: It also means that the Government cannot make any changes unless everyone agrees. It is unusual to have votes in committee when a Bill is taken on the floor of the House. The usual practice is to wait until Report stage, when any unresolved issues are dealt with and, as necessary, can be voted on. There is thus no great difference between committee on the floor of the House and in Grand Committee which is, in effect, a parallel chamber.
Irrespective of what process is adopted, reading through both House of Commons and Lords and research data provided (which is poor), I have become rather cynical about the whole process, as the government has already “won” and the those with genuine needs are not been given the opportunity to have their say, as the majority are not in the fortunate position of having access to the Internet or the physical capabilities to use it effectively.
It brought a smile to my face about the fact the committee where concerned their members not been able to get the division in time due to the distance from the chamber. How would like this problem every day of their lives and then their access to transport then been taken away!
Sorry but I don’t believe anybody is listening or really cares, it is no wonder that both my son and have become disheartened.
Peter Ongley: I am not sure how your observations relate to what I have said. Committee stage can and frequently does result in considerable changes to a Bill.
The government is guilty of attempting to suppress welfare reform bill opposition in the Lords by pushing the Welfair Bill through the Grand Committee rather than giving it the proper discussion it requires.
Meanwhile the Dumfries book club are also up in arms. We haven’t had time to debate this bill and the government is trying to rail road us. After all, at least we democratically elect our chairman, which is more democracy than the Lords.
There is thus no great difference between committee on the floor of the House and in Grand Committee which is, in effect, a parallel chamber.
Well Lord Norton since according to you there is no great difference, you won’t mind if we have transparency with proper debate and the votes taken on the floor of the house then will you ?. Look Lord Norton, listen up…we are not fools ok, so stop trying to insult our intelligence.
Maverick: This sort of comment annoys me considerably. What are you talking about? There is no issue of transparency. Proceedings in Grand Committee are as transparent as on the floor of the House. How on earth is transparency affected? What do you mean ‘proper debate’? It is the same as on the floor of the House, with those speaking who would speak if committee was on the floor of the House and following the same rules governing debate. It is, as I say, a parallel chamber.
I agree Lord Norton’s comment about Grand Committee. Hardly in secret! Forgive my ignorance, was this bill introduced into the Commons before the Lords? Has there been any restraint on debate?
Please let me know if I am on the right track or even on the right page.
Its my belief that the Government wishes to:
1. Privatize the NHS and open a lucrative Private Sector Market.
2. Reform all Benefits for sick and Disabled people across the country and put Private Heath Insurance and put a cheaper PIP package in to cover all Benefits its place.
4. Employ’s a questionable Company that assesses sick and disabled people that finds rather to many fit for work causing the claimant to appeal.
Looking at a lot of comments and disabled and charity forums on the internet I do not think I am on my own in the assumptions (Am I on the right Pages) Please Reply if you get a minute
Surely you are wrong? – that nice Mr Cameron promised most sincerely that the NHS was safe in his hands. He would not lie, would he?
The simple point I am trying to make on behalf of those who are genuinely disabled from birth and who don’t have a choice, it is very frustrating that they can’t their message across and even though you believe you are discussing the matter properly I can’t see from any of the committee meeting minutes evidence that anybody really understands the implications of amending the DLA (especially the motability element) will have on those in care homes. It is quite simple really by removing access to the motability scheme for this in care you are making them prisoners in their own homes, through the loss of access to either a car or wheelchair. It appears that everybody of the opinion that the care homes and local councils already provided these resources, this is not the case and where transport is provided, it is only a limited service in my son’s case one vehicle to cover the individual needs of 12 residents. Sorry this may seen a small issue from Government ‘s point of view but the loss of the motability element for my son will have life changing and major financial implications.
At least you are responding compared with seinior ministers in both parties, if they have responded it has been in a very condescending manner.
As stated, previously disabled people don’t believe anybody is listening, even when they have approached their MP’s, they basically not interested even though 60,000 disabled people will seriously affected by these changes.
Lord Norton : What I mean by proper debate is just that, proper debate, with proper debate and transparency there will be no need for Lansley to go skulking in toilets and tea rooms trying to pull the wool over the Lords eyes. Answer that one big shot ?.
And with proper debate and transparency we can all discuss UNUM insurance as well, strange how Lansley and co never mention those corporate criminals who are banned in most States in America but are over here to destroy the NHS with Lansley and company’s blessing. Go on google it, tell you what I will do it for you and will google at random UNUM disability insurance complaints: Attorney for denied claims. just copy and paste that. You could enter almost anything saying UNUM and it will come back negative, because there is nothing positive about them, they are well known criminals.
Try the above then, I haven’t looked at it, as I said I googled at random and don’t need to see what it says because I already know, and I’m beginning to suspect you know too.
Why isn’t that then (UNUM/ATOS) up for proper debate my Lord ?.
And by the way, your kind of comments annoy me too..!!
Maverick: Your comments have no bearing at all on what I said. What have your remarks got to do with the nature of debate in the Lords? I have no idea what you are referring to in relation to Andrew Lansley, but it has no particular relevance to proceedings on the Bill.
I think you’ll find it does as Andrew Lansley has been practically begging on his knees. I quote from the daily mail;
“Health Secretary Andrew Lansley faced the humiliation of touring the House of Lords bars and tearooms to sweet-talk peers into backing his reforms, which are unpopular with Lib Dems.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048004/NHS-reforms-vote-Andrew-Lansley-pleads-peers-support-controversial-bill.html#ixzz1aa4isNH0
I think this is what Maverick is talking about.
I don’t see it as unreasonable for a minister to lobby peers in support of a bill. If those opposing the bill can lobby against it, why should not the minister lobby for it? If he succeeds in any attempt to “pull the wool over the Lords eyes”, that says as much about the Lords as it does about the minister.
I’m not arguing in any way in favour of the bill, it is just that rhetoric can be overdone. Nor is it helpful to describe the eminently modest and quiet Lord Norton as “big shot”
Peter Ongley is quite right. Government – that is MPs we elect to represent us – are not listening to what people and organisations are saying about how the changes proposed in the Welfare Reforms will affect thousands of disabled people and families in the UK.
It is not just mobility and DLA. The Bill has many flaws.
For example, Housing Benefit and LHA changes, which do *not* take into account the specific needs of disabled people.
There are families with disabled parents and children; their need must be met also.
I am all for rooting out the workshy and scroungers, but the reform bill does not cater for those with difficult, severe or complicated disabilities and conditions.
The Bill has been ill-considered in construction and debate has unbalanced and narrow.
The effects of these changes will have a profound impact on disabled people.
For example, removing DLA or the mobility component will mean many disabled people will not be able to work anymore, as they depend on this for high or higher travel costs. The Govt should be promoting the ability of disabled people to work – not making it harder.
That will also hurt the economy.
Some disabled people will face the prospect of no longer being able to live in their home because their Local Housing Allowance Level means their Housing Benefit will no longer be enough to pay rent. In many areas, there are simply no suitable properties on the 40th percentile, never mind the 30th.
This will also hurt the economy.
For those who are forced out of their home and into care homes, this will cost the State more; it will cost taxpayers more. This is because such nursing care costs significantly more per week. It will also put more stress on the care system, social services and the NHS.
This will also hurt the economy.
There are many more examples. It is scary how many more there are, and that says a lot about the lack of insight inherent in this Bill.
The Bill has failed to recognize the significant knock-on effects, effects that bring significant knock-on costs. I do not think most reasonable people and taxpayers would support this Bill if the realized this.
Deep cuts have shown in the past that they do not have the desired effect. Deep cuts do not remove the needs and problems of people; they merely transfer the burden and cost elsewhere. But with that transfer, comes extra, high costs.
In the past, we saw how cuts left many people and families having to live in B&Bs and Guest Houses for years. This could well have been the start of the ‘generations of people on benefits’. That was in the 80s and there should be lessons learned from this. This is not the way to help people improve their lives or get into work.
Recent figures I saw from the Jobcentre showed the number of vacancies drop to below 200 (for a single month). Meanwhile, the number of Jobseekers was still over 20,000.
The ratio between vacancies and job seekers has been widening.
With the best will in the world, Tories such as Mark Spencer MP just telling people to get a job are out-of-touch and insulting. Their rants are often from the whip and are designed to rouse and please the Party faithful and right-wing sheep.
With media coverage, it paints a false image to the General Public.
This is very insulting to the thousands of people who are trying their best to find work, disabled or not.
In any event, the Welfare Reform Bill needs changes and refinements. Otherwise, genuine disabled people will suffer badlty. It is wrong that genuine, vulnerable people should be penalised or punished just for being so.
In its current form, the nature and details of the Bill will cost the country far more than it could ever save. History has proven this already.
Thanks,
Tom
themingford: There is a difference between listening – parliamentarians receive a mass of evidence both for and against proposals – and doing what some arguing a case want them to do.
I agree.
Consultation is pointless if they are only going to do what they want to do or vote a certain way for the wrong reasons.
It is an out-of-date system that promotes disgraceful conduct and ill-considered policies.
I find it hard to trust any MP. Since the 80s, it’s been sleeze, smut and dishonesty with politicians. Affairs, cash for questions, expenses, and Liam Fox to name but a few in a very long list.
They no longer have a credible defence.
Lansley has no particular relevance to proceedings on the Bill ?. You’ve got to be having a laugh. Because just like Lord Freud he has a conflict of interests that’s why he has a relevance.
You obviously didn’t read your favourite newspaper this morning then ?.
Lansley has everything to do with welfare reform, and fine well you know it.
So could you please answer my question, what is Lansley doing skulking around the Lords trying to spread disinformation and in my opinion outright lies regarding this Bill.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048004/NHS-reforms-vote-Andrew-Lansley-pleads-peers-support-controversial-bill.html
And moreover if you have a look at today’s Daily mirror my Lord you will see their article regarding the 40 peers with a conflict of interest, and they are allowed to vote on this Bill ? you really are having a laugh Sir, let me tell you this, you can laugh now, but you won’t be laughing shortly when it’s your turn for the push.
Here’s the roll call of shame : Their names are………
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone: The former Conservative Health Secretary Virginia Bottomley is a Director of BUPA, the health insurance, private hospital and care group.
Lord Naseby: Chairman of and a share-holder in Invesco Perpetual Recovery Trust. One fifth of their investments are in pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.
Lord Wakeham: Advisor to L.E.K. Consulting, which specialises in helping private healthcare companies identify “growth and new business development” and “opportunities with the government”.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Partner in Beachcroft, a law firm that offers incisive analysis on the full range of government, parliamentary and regulatory matters in the health sector.
Lord Lang of Monckton: Director of Marsh & McLennan Companies that “help hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and industry associations understand the implications of changing policy environments”.
Lord Darzi: Former surgeon drafted into government as a health minister by Gordon Brown when he was PM. Now an adviser to medical technology firm GE Healthcare.
Baroness Cumberlege of Newick: Former Tory health minister, runs Cumberlege Connections, a political networking firm that works “extensively” with the pharmaceutical industry.
Baron Higgins of Worthing: Holds in excess of £50,000 of shares in Lansdowne UK Equity Fund, backers of private hospital group Circle Holdings.
Baron Newton of Braintree: Advisor to Oasis Healthcare on dentistry and general healthcare matters.
Baroness Hogg of Kettlethorpe: Chair of Frontier Economics, a consultancy that advises private sector clients on the impact of healthcare reforms and how “to shape regulatory environments”.
Lord Freeman: The ex-health minister is chairman of the Advisory Board of PricewaterhouseCoopers, which claims to have “been at the heart of shaping [healthcare] reforms and working with clients to respond to the opportunities they present”.
Lord Ribeiro: Adviser on hospital reorganisation to PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Lord Blackwell: Chairman of Interserve, consultancy to NHS and private healthcare firms.
Lord Blyth of Rowington: Senior adviser to investment bankers Greenhill.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Senior adviser to Evercore, bank involved in huge healthcare deals.
Lord Garel-Jones: MD of UBS bank, whose healthcare division earned the firm over $1billion since 2005.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: Director of Goldman Sachs bank, provider of services to healthcare firms.
Lord Howard of Lympne: Senior adviser to Hawkpoint Partners, a corporate finance firm.
Lord Tugendhat: Adviser to Trilantic Capital Partners, a private equity firm “active” in healthcare.
Lord Coe: Director of AMT-Sybex Group, IT supplier to the NHS.
Lord Magan of Castletown: Director of the SISK Group of healthcare companies.
Lord Ballyedmond: Chairman of pharmaceutical company Norbrook Laboratories.
Lord Chadlington: Chief executive of Huntsworth communications group with several lobbying firms.
Lord Bell: Chairman of Chime Communications group, whose lobbying clients include Southern Cross, BT Health and AstraZeneca.
Baroness Hooper: Until July 11, chairman of Advisory Committee of Barclays Infrastructure Funds, one of the most experienced investors in hospital PFI deals.
Lord Ashcroft: Until 2010, held investments in two private healthcare groups.
Lord Leitch: Bupa chairman.
Lord Filkin: Adviser to outsourcing giant Serco, heavily involved in .
Lord Harris of Haringey: Senior adviser to business services giant KPMG.
Lord Hutton of Furness: Ex-health minister is an adviser to law firm Eversheds. Clients include care homes and private hospitals.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Self-employed “consultant on NHS and wider health issues”.
Lord Puttnam: Director of Huntsworth communications group.
Lord Warner: Former adviser to Apax Partners, one of the leading global investors in the healthcare sector. Current director of Sage Advice Ltd,
Lord Evans of Watford: Director of healthcare property firm Care Capital.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton: Ex-director of failed care home firm Southern Cross.
Lord Clement-Jones: Partner in DLA Piper, a global law firm providing lobbying services to “clients in the health and social care sectors”.
Lord Taverne: Chairman of private health insurer Axa Sun Life’s monitoring board.
Lord Patten of Barnes: Adviser to private equity firm Bridgepoint.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: Chairman of Semperian, an investment vehicle, which owns a portfolio of mature Public Private Partnership investments, including hospitals.
Lord Hameed: Chair of private secure mental health hospital group Alpha Hospitals, which is investing in a new acute private hospital in central London.
Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/health-news/2011/10/12/nhs-reforms-d-day-40-peers-have-financial-interest-in-nhs-privatisation-mirror-investigation-shows-115875-23482784/#ixzz1aaRYlprP
I’m surprised your list does not include Lord Djanogly, the minister, who clearly seems to believe his placing, somewhat late, his personal interests in insurance into a blind trust, makes him exempt from accusations of holding a conflict of interest. The blind trustees are hardly likely to dispose of those interests whilst a government is in power that clearly favours insurance-based health care. Lord Djanogly cannot of course place into a blind trust the similar interests of his relatives, so surely retains an indirect fiduciary interest in health-care insurance. It will be interesting to see what the Cabinet Secretary, who must be very busy these days, makes of this, and IPSA.
With 40 (forty) Lords having an outside interest in the NHS reforms being passed , the vote was a handicap from the beginning.
A 40 vote start is not a transparent and fair vote.
source Daily Mirror
@lord norton – strait answer to a strait question please – will you be supporting the disabled of the uk by voting AGAINST any thing in this bill that affects us detrimentally ??
yea or nay sir ??
I am in absolute tears How far can the disabled support the disabled and keep them going and help keep them safe in such an abusive sadistic and malicious system that your have got in place now?
My beautiful head cluster haemorahging girl with the 16 injections to her skull every few weeks, registered sight impaired with constant severe migraines and told she cannot even consider going out to cross the road on her own has just sent me a message to say she is in hospital. and still cannot get out of the WRAG group. I really do think this will end in tragedy for this girl. 🙁
Debbie
Hi
Am in hospital at the moment and having a bit of a bad time. Thought I would send you a quick message though just to let you know that I have found the criteria for the Support Group. It’s in the ATOS Training and Development Manual – Page 133 onwards. Not even worth me appealing against their decision to put me in the WRAG group.
Will be in touch when I get home from hospital. x (Lets be honest. If she gets home. That’s why she sends a message so late at night from hospital to a total stranger she only knew on the net who has helped stand by her at this time. Why else would you send a message to a stranger you know only because they supported you in recent tough times? Because we touched once to give support and reassurance. this might be the last time and a goodbye. Just in case we do not see you in the morning and I’d just like to say Thanks for all you have done but in the end they won and I lost – my life.
There is so much pain and suffering I really do have nothing but bitterness and hatred to you all.
Go play your games and daley over your debates. England was lost without a blade being shown but a fair maid’s blood was on it.
Lord Norton, you said
“There is no issue of transparency. Proceedings in Grand Committee are as transparent as on the floor of the House”
Correct me if Im wrong, as Im no where near as learned in parliamentary procedure as you are famed for, but are not normal debates on the house of lords, openly televised?
I cant seem to find any televised footage of the recent committee debate procedings?
pleasehelpus:
See http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9076
Lord Norton, in your experience of the parliamentary system, can you explain if there actually is a way for the public to raise a complaint if they feel a Lord is unsuitable for being involved in a debate, due to either a conflict of interests, or a past history of openly lying about issues highly important to the topic being debated?
Or is it just a case of the parliamentary system does not care if there is a major issue at stake like that?
I refer for example, to Lord Freud, who is on record as stating blatent untruths about how incapacity benefit operates.
Such as claims that claimaints are only seen by their own GP.
(and other comments of a similar ludicrous nature that serve only to fuel the propaganda in the media against the sick and disabled, furthering their stigmatisation).
For example, I found it ironic that in the recent debate, he actually spoke on behalf of the prime minister, when he was defending the prime ministers blatent lies that also serve to stigmatise the sick and disabled (as pointed out in the debate).
Yet – he himself is just as guilty of lying about claimaints on the previous system.
To me, allowing someone with such history, to be involved in such a debate flies in the face of decency and common sense?
The problem you face is that almost everyone has realised that there are large numbers of people removed from the unemployment figures by the trick of moving them to ICB.
So these people are receiving ICB, when they shouldn’t be.
The evidence is there that this group is a very large number.
So to remove them, people have to be tested. There is no other way. You can’t trust GPs any more on this because they have clearly signed these people off in the past for ICB, when they shouldn’t have been.
So the problem is how to make the testing accurate. Something that people who are anti the change won’t address.
“The evidence is there that this group is a very large number.”
I’ll believe that when your alias provides absolute proof. Until then stop being an ass
This Bill is an atrocity; it will affect the poorest in society the most whilst benefiting the rich. I can not believe the House of Lords are allowing this heap through its second reading. Perhaps I may be shouted down here but is it wrong to allow 40 members of the Lords to vote on the passage of this Bill when they have a vested interest in its enactment? I consider it too late to ask for transparency, maybe that will come in my time I don’t know, but I do know one thing. I am a member of the disabled community, I will suffer because of the actions of the Lords yesterday, I know the only people to benefit from this will be the rich and above all I know I am going to do everything I can to aid the abolition of the House of Lords. I am taking this position because they have metaphorically stabbed us (the disabled) in the back, I intend to metaphorically reciprocate.