Dispatches and Panorama programmes about Atos.

Richie-from-the-Boro

I take it no one watched [Olympics] or wanted to make a comment, just in case you missed the two programmes and wanted to watch them, they're here / BBC / CH4. << go on watch them - you know you want to <<

Prof Malc Harrington made a couple of damning remarks to camera. The minister Grayling, responding to the number of appeals in general the number of successful appeals in particular suggested that Judges should ignore the law and take the ATOS / LiMA at face value. Admissions that there were no targets .. .. just high 'averages' that had to be met, then there were indications that telephone WCA reports were changed after the telephone interview was made, and lots of other areas of concern to the sick and disabled.

All in all I thought the BBC was the better of the two but both exposed what we have always suspected. One concern I had was that the two programmes were shown during peak viewing time for the Olympics, a good time to bury them.

Chrysalis

Also to point out harrington has been made to resign, the timing happens to be very coincidental with the panaroma programme.

DUKE

I'd love to see some of them go off to work after a dose of chemo!

missile

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

.... did anyone watch Dispatches and Panorama tonight ? .......

I did and I was disappointed by the superficial level of the investigation. ATOS refused to be interviewed and the government spokeman was a sock puppet.

rogerblack

DUKE wrote: »

I'd love to see some of them go off to work after a dose of chemo!

Chemo varies significantly.

Some are extremely affected, however for example in the case of my mother, she avoided chemo assuming the side effects would be bad, because she had seen a relative very badly affected - hairloss, vomiting, lack of taste, ...

The side-effects were not - for her - significant, and the delay in her starting the chemo due to fear of the side-effects is likely to have contributed to her death, as when she did start, the tumors did shrink markedly, but they were already too large and numerous.

Chrysalis

trastor you seem to be one of those who thinks because one person does it everyone can.

sparkycat2

trastor wrote: »

Having cancer and taking oral chemo is not classed as being enough to warrant being said to be unable to work.
Many people do work and many work full time whilst undergoing this form of treatment.

Much the same as someone who was born with no arms or legs - they too are well able to work full time - I should know I have a friend with that disability that has managed to get a degree and has qualified as a Chartered Accountant and works full time for one of the largest practices in the world. He travels as far as the Middle East, Africa as well as Europe.

He dosn't see his 'problems' as being a disabilty more an inconvenience!

How can someone suffer from the disability of no arms or legs? Do you mean no arms and no legs. Does that include no hands and no feet?

What point in relation to welfare benefits eligibility are you trying to make?

Do you not think that some disability benefits should be unconditional, rather than have conditionality and sanctions regimes. That if they are not working it should not be seen as their fault, but due to their limited work capability, severe barriers to employment, limited employment opportunities, employer discrimination. That help into work should be offered but on a voluntary basis no conditionality and no sanctions to benefits. That the decision to take any help offered should be theirs, as it is their quality of life.

Or are you saying that even the very severely ill those undergoing chemotherapy and the very disabled those with no arms and legs are capable of working. So there should be no disability benefits or all disability benefits should be conditional and have sanctions regimes. Because if the ill or disabled person is not working they have not tried hard enough, they need tough love to break them out of a culture of dependency. Being ill or disabled is a invalid excuse, there is no disability but a bad attitude. Anyone not working should be expected to work and blamed for not doing so.

Personally I think the very ill or very disabled should be assumed to be of good character rather than presumed to be suffering from a culture of dependency, lazy, malingering, scroungers, in need of tough love. That support enabling them to be part of society and live independent lives with dignity should be seen as their right, as they should be viewed as part of society, part of us, not a burden to society, them vs us.

teajug

trastor wrote: »

Having cancer and taking oral chemo is not classed as being enough to warrant being said to be unable to work.
Many people do work and many work full time whilst undergoing this form of treatment.

Much the same as someone who was born with no arms or legs - they too are well able to work full time - I should know I have a friend with that disability that has managed to get a degree and has qualified as a Chartered Accountant and works full time for one of the largest practices in the world. He travels as far as the Middle East, Africa as well as Europe.

He dosn't see his 'problems' as being a disabilty more an inconvenience!

Going to work maybe OK for some if they got good employers and they are willing to make adjustments but the majority of employer today does not want to make adjustments for disable employees they would rather them go than make adjustments for them.

The bigger the employer they are less willing to make adjustments for employees. Disabled people do not want to take employers to tribunals to get them to make adjustments as this is stressful and contributes to making the disable employee’s condition worse.:mad::mad:

Also it is up to the Employment Tribunal to made the decision whether the employee has a disability or not...and you bet the employer will go that lengths to get rid of a disabled employee.

sparkycat2

trastor wrote: »

Couldn't they?

What makes him different then to the rest? Oh yes I forgot, determination to succeed. We all have that in us, but some just choose not to use it!

The problem that needs to be tackled is lack of support into work and lack of job opportunities. Most of the work capable disabled are already willing. The problem is not lazy disabled people, but unemployment amongst work capable disabled people.

Everyone is different to everyone else. From different disabilities to different abilities and different opportunities. At what point do you acknowledge that failure to overcome barriers to employability and lack of employment opportunities are not the persons fault, that some will fail to find employment despite their best efforts to succeed.
Or that some maybe work capable but not economically viable to employ vs a able person, or not reliable or safe enough to employ due to their health conditions.
Or that some are simply incapable of working due to the debilitating nature of their illness or disability.
Or that sometimes it reaches a point where quality of life should be the issue.

Do we want to end up with a system that says to disabled people you can push a button so you are work capable, not eligible for unconditional disability benefits. Do we want a system that says to the terminally ill, working will keep you occupied and give you a sense of purpose and worth, it's good for you. Especially when it is not help into work we would be offering them but simply reclassifying them from deserving to undeserving, redefining them as lazy scroungers a burden to society whose benefits should be reduced and who need a kick up the backside, conditionality and sanctions.

sparkycat2

trastor wrote: »

It seems that you have a lovey dovey attitude towards people. That is a rather dangerous game to play. Many will take advantage or abuse that helping hand. How would you stop that happening?

We have a problem of disabled unemployment in the UK. That in my view is due to lack of support into work and employment opportunities, not laziness amongst the disabled. Most of the disabled want to work and many do work. I do not believe there are vast numbers of ill and disabled people who choose to live on disablity benefits because they are lazy.

Do you have any idea of the level of incapability required to receive
SDA
IB under the last version of the all work capability test
The benefit that has replaced SDA and IB
ESA under the current any work capability test

The thalidomide victim you mention may well not suffer from sufficient incapability to qualify.

Do you think the disabled when they are unemployed should receive more financial support and practical support into work than the able unemployed. That the ill or disabled might be expected to be more likely to be unemployed or unemployed for longer periods of time due to limited work capability and limited job opportunities and employer discrimination in comparison to able people.

What level of conditionality and what level of severity of sanctions would you want to impose on them to kick them up the backside and into getting a job. When limited work capability, lack of job opportunities and employer discrimination are likely reasons for their inability to find employment.

Other European countries with lower disabled unemployment have better education inclusion and achievement for disabled people and quota systems for large private employers and state employers. We are not implement a solution to the problem of unemployment amongst the disabled, we are simply implementing a system that blames the disabled for being unemployed and reduces the support they are given.

Do you object to DLA the in and out of work non means tested tax exempt disability benefit that is being replaced by PIP. Or is it just non working disabled or ill people you view having a culture of dependency.