Tribunal about my ESA

Garry_Anderson

NASA wrote: »

Starting?

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

Why is it that troll keeps coming to mind when I read posts like this.

Garry_Anderson

atomicsheep wrote: »

"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

You seem to lack the ability to understand logic - that the ITS chairmen are not independent when they can act on behalf of the DWP.

Garry_Anderson

someonestopme wrote: »

"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

This is why I put the word "ALL" after I coined that sentence.

healy

atomicsheep wrote: »

"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

You are correct. That is the point I have been trying to get across for a long time but it does not seem to be working.

someonestopme

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

This is why I put the word "ALL" after I coined that sentence.

but your judgement or opinion does not fit all the facts

alwaysonthego_2

NASA wrote: »

And I just remembered the haircut:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

:rotfl::rotfl: naughty naughty boy you just made me splutter my coffee over my laptop mentioning the hair 'do' :eek::o:o:whistle::whistle:

Garry_Anderson

someonestopme wrote: »

but your judgement or opinion does not fit all the facts

When the chairman can act for the DWP (as plaintiff/ prosecution) arguing the case against claimant - how *exactly* is the chairman independent?

The chairman also can not answer questions related to their 'evidence' - so it is even worse than having the DWP put the case.

nogginthenog

NASA wrote: »

I was thinking about stopping all the lies - like people who claim disability benefits and officiate as linesmen at the same time - or those that claim disability benefits and work a 40 hour week on a busy construction site.

See, it works both ways, there are liars on both sides, neither is more justifiable than the other yet on here you would think it is a one way street.

Tape the claimants, tape them for a week before they arrive and a month, covertly, after they have had the medical, record it on the fullness of evidence. That should be an interesting excercise.

The number of people who abuse the system is very small, in the scheme of things ..Of course the media go to town on a few high profile cases, and gets the gullable public wound up.
Most people are still very honest,...The main problem in the country is getting people to claim the billions of pounds that go unclaimed in Benefits.

atomicsheep

Garry you are still talking about your experience, this is not the case in all tribunals

I_luv_cats

I went to a specialist at CAB (IB purposes) who prepared a submission for the SSAT.

Also I had a person to accompany me to the SSAT to observe.

I think Atos just made too many assumptions on their computer prompts and rushed it through without getting any clarification on much of my IB50 Q.

The SSAT did use a computer prog but allowed for more detailed questioning / replies.