Tribunal about my ESA

NASA_2

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

You don't think the link proves that DWP and ATOS are being put under pressure to reach targets then - how niave.

There is helping people off benefits and pushing sick people off benefits - guess which one they shouldn't be doing.

No, I dont believe the link proves anything, anyone that does is being naive.

The government should be doing everything they can to remove people from benefits. Its a moral and just thing to do.

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Troll comes to mind when I read posts like this.

Good for you:T

Garry_Anderson

atomicsheep wrote: »

do you have a habit of attending peoples tribunals? how many have you seen....other than yours

Err.. when you see the chairman acting for the 'prosecution' (DWP) and making out it was nothing unusual then you know the process is not independent.

someonestopme

Garry you obviously think you've been hard done by but now you're starting to sound a bit fanatical

NASA_2

someonestopme wrote: »

Garry you obviously think you've been hard done by but now you're starting to sound a bit fanatical

Starting?

He's caused merriment here for quite a while:beer:
And I just remembered the haircut:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

atomicsheep

"Err.. when you see the chairman acting for the 'prosecution' (DWP) and making out it was nothing unusual then you know the process is not independent."

i presume by that comment the answer to my question was "1"

I dont think you can accurately assess the whole process by your "1" experience im afraid

someonestopme

"If your judgement or opinion does not fit ALL the facts then it is not the facts that are wrong" ~ Garry Anderson - Haverhill UK

My tribunal was very fair-FACT

Garry_Anderson

NASA wrote: »

No, I dont believe the link proves anything, anyone that does is being naive.

The government should be doing everything they can to remove people from benefits. Its a moral and just thing to do.

Good for you:T

Nothing moral about defrauding sick people of their legit entitlement to benefit - it has been going on for years.

e.g. So-called 'medicals' - Commissioners File: CIB 5361/97 - Mr Commissioner Howell QC, 20 May 1998.

The doctor’s response "… at the training sessions it was stressed to work from the bottom up and tick the first appropriate descriptor."

Mr PL Howell QC stated, "This appeal is therefore allowed and the case remitted accordingly. There are obviously some disturbing implications if this doctor's apparent misunderstanding of what the all work test requires has affected the evidence given in other cases or the same "training" has infected other doctors but those are matters to be considered elsewhere."

Garry_Anderson

someonestopme wrote: »

Garry you obviously think you've been hard done by but now you're starting to sound a bit fanatical

Because I am answering your points - or highlight that the world isn't as perfect as some pretend it is to other people - what do you think is illogical?

Or are you just trolling

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Nope - this was an apeal against their decision to stop my IB.

"The tribunal hears both sides.." - LMAO.

So INDEPENDENT - the ITS chairman put forward the case of DWP when they didn't turn up - he was actually acting as 'prosecution' - presenting their evidence - despite the fact that it was falsified and he could not answer the questions put to him for me to disprove it.

He was also talking about a lack of resources in the DWP - a cosy relationship, it must be very helpful for them - this is a new definition to the meaning Independent - it no longer meant autonomous, unconstrained, unfettered, self-reliant, or separate.

That is what appeals are usually about for IB, an appeal against a decision to stop IB, that is what I said before.

The tribunal does here both sides.

The tribunal is INDEPENDENT.

The other stuff you have posted before and I have replied before, I am not going to waste time repeating myself.

NASA_2

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

Nothing moral about defrauding sick people of their legit entitlement to benefit

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.