Calling all ESA Appeals Experts! Failed medical

nogginthenog

NASA wrote: »

Self preservation?

What a ridiculious answer and no proof provided!....I am sure that CAB and Benefits advisors can turn their hands to something else if need be,
and you know it!

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

"I have read the article and there is no mention of targets given to ATOS."

Err.. Heals, how do you think the target of one million people are going to be cut from benefits - perhaps DWP are hoping ATOS are 'subconsciously influenced' by this

You have not explained, why exactly are DWP economical objectives ignored when finding the best 'value for money'.

There is no mention of targets given to ATOS.

The reduction is intended through pathways to work.

You have provided no proof or evidence that ATOS have been given targets to reduce IB. You clearly have none.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

There is no mention of targets given to ATOS.

The reduction is intended through pathways to work.

You have provided no proof or evidence that ATOS have been given targets to reduce IB. You clearly have none.

1. What evidence have you that pathways to work even removes the number of people even entering health related benefits like IB or its replacement - let alone taking them off those already on?

2. Targets are an economical objective - basic common-sense dictates that it would be taken into account for governments 'value for money' objective when deciding firm for contract.

dmg24

Have just had a quicky look at Garry_Anderson's website ... classic!

Genuine question - are you in receipt of psychiatric treatment? If not, have you discussed your 'issues' with pretty much everything with your GP?

70sfreak

I am the original poster of this thread and I am glad that people have made their comments.

I do not claim to know as much about these issues, but I have seen DWP statements about the issue of possibly getting rid of Attendance Allowance for people over 65 (green paper if I'm correct out in November)
The way they talk about "these people" and "targets" is sickening. so wouldn't surprise me if ATO are instructed by DWP in similar manner.

I know this is slightly different, but I have MS and know people who are Carers or pay for such a service. Carers work bloody hard and some people need Carers. It is a different world that the unfortunate only see or experience.

On a similar subject, I saw a programme on Tv last night (Channel 4) about a private company called A4E who provide training for the unemployed. The Documentary was the 1st of a 3 part series. Last night's subject was lone parents and compulsory courses they have to attend. Although the course did motivate some of the women to feel more positive about themselves and work, there was a lack of understanding by the A4e Trainer of how some lone parents will not have the earning power to support themselves 100% ie rent, council tax, utilities bill etc. In one particular case, a woman had 4 children and was found a job in "Poundland". She would find it hard to support her family working for the minimum wage! This basic understanding of budgeting should have been looked at in the beginnng before the poor woman realise it herself and then felt 10 times worse about having to return to Benefits.

I have experience of what I'm talking about as I used to be trainer for unemployed people and I'm currently a lone parent.

Food for thought.....

70sfreak

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

1. What evidence have you that pathways to work even removes the number of people even entering health related benefits like IB or its replacement - let alone taking them off those already on?

2. Targets are an economical objective - basic common-sense dictates that it would be taken into account for governments 'value for money' objective when deciding firm for contract.

1. I said the reduction is intended through pathways to work, so far it has done badly and those on IB have remained fairly static for a number of years which disproves your theory of targets. Pathways to work would not remove people entering IB or its replacement because you would need to be on IB to be put on it. You are not making much sense.

2. You have no proof of targets so it is only your OPINION and not a FACT, this seems to be what you cannot understand.

Garry_Anderson

70sfreak wrote: »

I am the original poster of this thread and I am glad that people have made their comments.

I do not claim to know as much about these issues, but I have seen DWP statements about the issue of possibly getting rid of Attendance Allowance for people over 65 (green paper if I'm correct out in November)
The way they talk about "these people" and "targets" is sickening. so wouldn't surprise me if ATO are instructed by DWP in similar manner.

I know this is slightly different, but I have MS and know people who are Carers or pay for such a service. Carers work bloody hard and some people need Carers. It is a different world that the unfortunate only see or experience.

On a similar subject, I saw a programme on Tv last night (Channel 4) about a private company called A4E who provide training for the unemployed. The Documentary was the 1st of a 3 part series. Last night's subject was lone parents and compulsory courses they have to attend. Although the course did motivate some of the women to feel more positive about themselves and work, there was a lack of understanding by the A4e Trainer of how some lone parents will not have the earning power to support themselves 100% ie rent, council tax, utilities bill etc. In one particular case, a woman had 4 children and was found a job in "Poundland". She would find it hard to support her family working for the minimum wage! This basic understanding of budgeting should have been looked at in the beginnng before the poor woman realise it herself and then felt 10 times worse about having to return to Benefits.

I have experience of what I'm talking about as I used to be trainer for unemployed people and I'm currently a lone parent.

Food for thought.....

70sfreak

Dear 70sfreak - I am also sickened by their attitude - this is what angers me - they treat claimants with the same contempt as criminals - but giving claimants less rights e.g. opinion can be used against them in legal action but not to criminals.

Those who have been on the receiving end know what it is like.

Garry_Anderson

healy wrote: »

1. I said the reduction is intended through pathways to work, so far it has done badly and those on IB have remained fairly static for a number of years which disproves your theory of targets. Pathways to work would not remove people entering IB or its replacement because you would need to be on IB to be put on it. You are not making much sense.

2. You have no proof of targets so it is only your OPINION and not a FACT, this seems to be what you cannot understand.

1. No - it does not - targets are a fact - you merely have shown that pathways are not effective at removing from IB numbers.

2. It is basic common-sense that economical objectives would be taken into account in VFM - you have still not explained why it would not be.

healy

Garry_Anderson wrote: »

1. No - it does not - targets are a fact - you merely have shown that pathways are not effective at removing from IB numbers.

2. It is basic common-sense that economical objectives would be taken into account in VFM - you have still not explained why it would not be.

1. Your theory of targets has been disproved. Targets are not a fact, they are merely your OPINION which is not a FACT.

2. You have still failed to provide any proof of targets, again it is your OPINION not a FACT.

You should take some notice of your own signature.

healy

dmg24 wrote: »

Have just had a quicky look at Garry_Anderson's website ... classic!

Genuine question - are you in receipt of psychiatric treatment? If not, have you discussed your 'issues' with pretty much everything with your GP?

I have suggested this before, but clearly he has ignored it like everything else he does not agree with.

Maybe I should stop posting on this thread as I am feeding his paranoia.