Incapacity Benefit Wrongly Stopped - Failed Medical

pipkin71

scootw1 wrote: »

Like I said, just an idea. of course, some employers do make allowances for things like this as they do for back problems but there are also a lot of employers who don't.

It's good for ideas to be explored scoot. Perhaps one of the answers is that employers make allowances, but then would they prefer to employ someone who is healthy rather than make the allowances necessary.

It's very difficult with a chronic illness, because there is just no way of knowing what each day is like. It would, I assume, be equally as difficult for an employer, not knowing when, and for how long, they would get some work out of an employee

nogginthenog

Angel89 wrote: »

There are thousands and thousands of jobs that dont require any interaction with people.


And im sure that if this 'indepth debating with people' energy was instead channelled into work training,
that these people would be be able to easily do many jobs.


(They will have to work something out in a few months anyways when the tories come in and move them all onto jsa)

DON'T you have to sign a form,saying your fit and able to work...to get jsa!

cyclonebri1

I'm not aiming this at anyone specifically for the simple reason that there are such a wide range of views being expressed here . But boy is there an extreme range of views being expressed here.

Almost all are plausible, even sensible but all so extreme/polarised that there seems no middle ground?.

What was the original post about anyway?, yeah, I know, but It's obviously a massive topic. Good debate and if we can keep it straight, a benefit for a few readers.

strawberry_cupcake_2

healy wrote: »

I have not made any comment on your tribunal.

Are mixing me up with another poster?

My apologies Healy, yes i do think I muddled you up with someone else, let me have a look, I tend to get confused, sorry

cyclonebri1

strawberry_cupcake wrote: »

My apologies Healy, yes i do think I muddled you up with someone else, let me have a look, I tend to get confused, sorry

This whole post has muddled me up, I'm leaving:whistle::whistle:

strawberry_cupcake_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

The fact that they seemed relevant to you doesn't mean that they actually were. I agree with SDW on this.

How do you know what is or isn't relevant? If the question is asked, as a question, not as an off topic chat, then how is that not deemed relevant, the questions that I answered and he didnt record, were the same questions that were off the questionnaire, so how can they be irrelevant?

cit_k

nogginthenog wrote: »

DON'T you have to sign a form,saying your fit and able to work...to get jsa!

You do..

And they wont be able to move everyone on to jsa - people will just appeal, and the cost of 1.5 million appeals is going to run into the billions.

As soon as they look at the costs, they will realise its more expensive to try, and cheaper to leave them on the sick.

cit_k

strawberry_cupcake wrote: »

How do you know what is or isn't relevant? If the question is asked, as a question, not as an off topic chat, then how is that not deemed relevant, the questions that I answered and he didnt record, were the same questions that were off the questionnaire, so how can they be irrelevant?

Indeed, the questions are fairly standard (as they are prompted by software (lima) ) and the examiner will try to guide you to one of the standard answers usually (again supplied by lima).

Sometimes the examiner can try variations on the original question in order to get a answer that is suitably similar to a answer he or she can pick from lima (or to be able to manually enter a different answer, but they have to fully justify any non standard answer, hence why they tend to keep it fairly on track)

Its pretty hard to give an irrelavant answer to one of those examiners, considering the style of the questions, and the ways they employ to get the answers.

Its rather annoying when you have answered, to find out later that they did not record anything remotely like your actual statement, or they recorded it, and used it in the report, but handily for them failed to use it in the part of the report meant for point scoring, and used rather irrelavant statements instead.

The answer a claimaint gives is relavent, as if it does not match one of the standard answers, the doc should be trying to get them to answer it in a way that does, and they do try to do that. Howver, if a claimaint does not - then they should record what the claimaint did say...... As its relavent - it is their testimony after all.

Garry_Anderson

Angel89 wrote: »

There are thousands and thousands of jobs that dont require any interaction with people.

And im sure that if this 'indepth debating with people' energy was instead channelled into work training,
that these people would be be able to easily do many jobs.

(They will have to work something out in a few months anyways when the tories come in and move them all onto jsa)

Name any job that does not require a boss or stress.

Even data entry - an oft used example by idiots who don't know what they are talking about - I was a manager in an accounts department and would not hire somebody like myself - work has to be accurate - anybody with pain or mental problems can be easily distracted.

I can guess this is why people have had wrong information entered into accounts - e.g. driving licence (you may have seen recently on tv) - another example; last month I was stopped by police for no car insurance - inurance company enterered wrong number plate - they stupidly employed ESA workers.

Garry_Anderson

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly, many people on MSE use the Thanks button to indicate agreement.

You and Garry haven't given any evidence, you've just described your experiences (at length!) but that isn't evidence, particularly because you're so biased.

Wrong - we have both gave evidence e.g. government targets.

Also, our experiences let us give first-hand knowledge of what the poster/ claimant should expect when having tests and tribunals.

BTW: It is the ATOS 'medical' tests that are *really* biased.