Some more good news and common sense...

[Guest]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22620894

A good result - but note, the *******s are appealing the decision. How low can you get? Hope and pray that they don't win!

[ahinton]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22620894
A good result - but note, the *******s are appealing the decision. How low can you get? Hope and pray that they don't win!

This is by no means the only instance of Work Capability Assessment (WCA) tests having been called into question and doubts raised about them, the criteria and how the relevant rules are interpreted and carried out are not all in respect of potential claimants with mental difficulties; I fear that this, one of the more high profile cases to date, is only one example of the increasing implementation of a culture of desperation on the part of a government seeking to cut financial corners wherever it thinks that it might get away with it irrespective of the potential adverse consequences that can arise from such action. Like you and, I imagine most of us, I hope that the appeal fails and anticipate that it will but, whether or not it does so, the taxpayer will be obliged to fund it.

[Simon]

Agreed, AH - except that I don't think it's desperation. It;'s not going to save all that much. I think it's a total lack of awareness by some political advisors and civil servants of the needs of some very vulnerable minority groups. I don't actually think they don't care - I think they simply don't know. Clueless about reall life for some sectors. And disgustingly, they don't try to find out before they make up these ideas.

The gap between the political and public servant class in London at the top, and the weakest and poorest at the bottom, seems very large and to be growing all the time.

[eighthobstruction]

This is an issue I have campaigned on for the last 5years (longer actually as it was a failure point too in the IB process). Hopefully this will come to a positive end which ensure the inarticulate, and those incapable of filling an ESA50 form with adequate information, and those who do not know the correct way to approach and retain medical professionals to aid their cases. The Malcolm Harrington report recommended that the DWP should be more careful with this type of claimant....the govts response was to set up the Mental Health Champions system. These MHC's have failed....as they do not have any contact with the claimants except through their ESA50 forms, and then are ONLY brought into the frame should an assessor feel they need advice on MH issues....they (the MHC's) are as far as I can tell, in a call centre rather than face to face....

As with many money and Benefit problems....it is the charity sector, CAB etc who take up slack....

Anyway lets hope the judges get good advice....

[ahinton]

Agreed, AH - except that I don't think it's desperation

I disagree; I think that, as just one of a number of varyingly crazy exercises to cut costs by means of arbitrary thrashing about with s fiscal scythe, it smacks of just that.

It's not going to save all that much.

Indeed not - but, if it results in individual lawsuits and class acts, it could actually end up costing quite a bit.

I think it's a total lack of awareness by some political advisors and civil servants of the needs of some very vulnerable minority groups. I don't actually think they don't care - I think they simply don't know.

How the lack of concern balances against the ignorance might not be that easy to asses with any degree of reliability but I don;t see that this matters much in the scheme of things, to the extent that it's the outcomes that are of concern, regardless of their cause.

Clueless about real life for some sectors. And disgustingly, they don't try to find out before they make up these ideas.

The gap between the political and public servant class in London at the top, and the weakest and poorest at the bottom, seems very large and to be growing all the time.

All agreed.

[amateur51]

I disagree; I think that, as just one of a number of varyingly crazy exercises to cut costs by means of arbitrary thrashing about with s fiscal scythe, it smacks of just that.


Indeed not - but, if it results in individual lawsuits and class acts, it could actually end up costing quite a bit.


How the lack of concern balances against the ignorance might not be that easy to asses with any degree of reliability but I don;t see that this matters much in the scheme of things, to the extent that it's the outcomes that are of concern, regardless of their cause.


All agreed.

But wasn't all this the result of IDS' think tank and its years of consultation & discussion? This was all carefully thought through, I understood and IDS refused to be re-shuffled because he wanted to see it through, good grief.

[ahinton]

But wasn't all this the result of IDS' think tank and its years of consultation & discussion? This was all carefully thought through, I understood and IDS refused to be re-shuffled because he wanted to see it through, good grief.

I'm not so sure about "all", but that particular "think tank" certainly had considerable involvement in it; that said, to describe its work as a careful thinking through when, following its eventual recent implementation, the raised hackles of lawyers and other parties representing or prepared to represent those at risk of its possible adverse consequences seems to me to be well less than credible, frankly, IDS's intransigence and inflexibility notwithstanding.

[amateur51]

I'm not so sure about "all", but that particular "think tank" certainly had considerable involvement in it; that said, to describe its work as a careful thinking through when, following its eventual recent implementation, the hackles of lawyers and other parties representing or prepared to represent those at risk of its possible adverse consequences seems to me to be well less than credible, frankly, IDS's intransigence and inflexibility notwithstanding.

Thanks for cutting through the persiflage to my drift, ah

[eighthobstruction]

The system was introduced during James Purnell stint at DWP....with a great deal of input from Frank Fields think tank.....though previous Secretaries of State for DWP all were involved in some ways in 'making it so'....i.e Hain, Hutton, Blunkett and Johnson (they also employed Atos and created ESA).....................IDS is only implementing what was already so....I'm not sure who it was who employed Harrington to bring forth his three reports (probably New Labour, possibly Yvette Cooper)....those reports have made all the difference....

But if they do take it to appeal ....well that will be IDS....

[amateur51]

The system was introduced during James Purnell stint at DWP....with a great deal of input from Frank Fields think tank.....though previous Secretaries of State for DWP all were involved in some ways in 'making it so'....i.e Hain, Hutton, Blunkett and Johnson.....................IDS is only implementing what was already so....I'm not sure who it was who employed Harrington to bring forth his three reports (probably New Labour, possibly Yvette Cooper)....those reports have made all the difference....

But if they do take it to appeal ....well that will be IDS....

Many thanks eighthO

[Beef Oven]

Just think about the difference £350k would make to many disabled people that are really struggling with the simple things most people take for granted. I hope she doesn't appeal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-22648485

[ahinton]

Thanks for cutting through the persiflage to my drift, ah

Actually, I see that I didn't do it very well, having inadvertently deleted a word or two! I've now corrected what I wrote.

[ahinton]

Just think about the difference £350k would make to many disabled people that are really struggling with the simple things most people take for granted. I hope she doesn't appeal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-22648485

Much as I agree, it is almost certain that such cases are relatively (and mercifully) rare and they must not be cited as any kind of defence of the shortcomings in the current system that's already being widely vilified by claimants and professionals alike.