why in gods name has mse...

seven-day-weekend

So what is wrong with standard responses? They can't say on a forum whether someone is going to pass their medical or not, nor comment on individual cases.

Accurate standard responses are certainly better than some of the scaremongering rubbish that people write on here.

quidsinquentin

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

So what is wrong with standard responses? They can't say on a forum whether someone is going to pass their medical or not, nor comment on individual cases.

Accurate standard responses are certainly better than some of the scaremongering rubbish that people write on here.

On the other hand, what is the point of standard responses?

They'll add nothing to the understanding of the issue, and may add to frustration and distrust of the company (on here/elsewhere) simply because it will possibly appear as if the company representative is unable to respond fully due to 'company policy'. In which case it goes back to why are they here?

Tbh, I'd be more interested to know why MSE Martin thought it was a good idea to allow them access to the forums given they appear in the media to be such a sensitive/contentious issue.

[Deleted User]

cosmic-dust wrote: »

Hopefully MSE won't subscribe to this witch hunt. The ATOS rep has as much right to post on this forum as each and every one of us members. I think it's pretty disgraceful that the OP is trying to dictate who should and who shouldn't be allowed to post on this forum.

maybe you should re-read my OP,i only object to the official capacity they have been given,this from a company(atos)who have used their legal powers to close at least one critical website,i think you`ll find its atos that like to dictate not I
just to add i find it hard to read on this thread about scarmongering re:atos,i suspect those who have been on the receiving end would not describe it as such

cit_k

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Well said. .

Apart from the lies it contains, and the innacuracies, and the fact, if anything, it will lead not to more people posting about ATOS if word gets out there is an ATOS rep on board

cit_k

JasonLVC wrote: »

On an open forum, people shouldn't be making statements or assertions that cannot be supported anyway.

Perhaps by making it very clear that there IS an ATOS rep on the boards, MSE towers is hoping that people will be more careful about making libelous or defamatory remarks about an organisation, which not only protects the indivdiual but also MSE from being sued.

I'm not entirely sure what benefit an ATOS rep will have here as they'll be unable to respond to individual issues (data protection) nor defend themselves against accusations (again, cannot defend or else could identify the poster), so I understand your concerns, but banning ATOS from the forums will not stop them viewing the posts as they're probably doing this already, so what difference does it really make?

What makes you think they cannot be supported?
People usually do have proof, either their own testimony, or actual documents, and in some cases, even recordings of events, or witnesses.

There are some un-assertable assumptions made from time to time, which are not helped by the refusal of either the DWP or ATOS to come clean and publish data that would clear the matter up.

But those are from what I have seen, in the minority.

I think also, you are misunderstanding what is meant when atos refer to libelous or malicious statements - what a court of law would think, and what atos would think, I would think are likely to be very different beasts.

ATOS deny things go on, when there is 100 percent proof things are going on.

They have even claimed they do not conduct their business in a shameful manner.

cit_k

Personally, I think an ATOS rep on board is only going to help show up atos for what it really is.

Because, they have three options that I can see, ignore the problems and stick there head in the sand - in which case they will be seen as
a uncaring company, that is openly conducting business in a shameful manner.
OR they can revert back to censorship, in which case they will be seen as a shameful company that is trying to censor the sick and disabled so they can conduct their business in a shameful manner, knowingly, but without dissent, as they have silenced it.
OR they can address the issues - and either be torn to bits, as any lies are exposed - or tell the truth, and try to limit the damage and improve things for everyone.

cit_k

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

if that was on the Board where the poor chap(ess) had abuse hurled at him/her by some of our worst cases, I'm not surprised!

Hardly abuse to point out what their own company does.

On the other hand, perhaps your right

cit_k

quidsinquentin wrote: »

On the other hand, what is the point of standard responses?

They'll add nothing to the understanding of the issue, and may add to frustration and distrust of the company (on here/elsewhere) simply because it will possibly appear as if the company representative is unable to respond fully due to 'company policy'. In which case it goes back to why are they here?

Tbh, I'd be more interested to know why MSE Martin thought it was a good idea to allow them access to the forums given they appear in the media to be such a sensitive/contentious issue.

The fact they are hear, and no doubt reading (I would be suprised if they had not been reading before though), means they will be unable to deny knowledge of all this dissent, and all the points raised about their company should it ever go to court.

Or maybe they will deny it, and then look like they had tasked a rep to not actually bother reading all atos posts.

Either way will look very bad on them, not only in a court, but in commons select committees, reviews, and other evidence.

cit_k

I do look forward to their answers though, including was a risk assessment done, to see if it would put vunerable people of posting, do they have permission, what is their exact role, and the others I have asked..

cit_k

quidsinquentin wrote: »

I'm a bit torn on this issue now.

I can't throw in my MSE membership because MSE doesn't 'delete' memberships, so I can't really express my complete disapproval.

On the other hand, I'm at a loss to see what, exactly, an 'Official Company Representative' of ATOS is going to say...or not say.

Are they going to repeat and confirm company policies? Of course, they're hardly likely not to are they? Are they going to deny scurrilous rumours? Of course, they're hardly likely to confirm them are they? Are they going to give an insight into how well-meaning and professional the company is? Very probably.

Perhaps we'll get insights into how the processes/interviews work, possibly by hearing about sample interviews? Well, no not really, because individual cases can't be commented on. Will they engage in public debate about the fairness or otherwise of the ATOS/ESA process that seems to have gripped some of the media, or perhaps how the ESA questionnaire was arrived at? Can't see it myself.

In which case we'll perhaps get some answers to or valuable insight into....what?

Will they be keeping an eye on who is saying what on the forums?

Ooh, good question.

There is no reason individual cases cannot be commented upon, not if the individual in question gives consent.

Even then, consent is NOT needed to answer questions about problems with the case, in a generic manner, that do not involve having to name anyone.

I can think of few things they would be unable to answer, data protection is not a get out clause for them.