Thread: disability living allowance
View Single Post
Old 14-12-2009, 15:22   #139
Flyboy
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,375
Flyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful oneFlyboy is the helpful one
Re: disability living allowance
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisajones View Post
Perhaps I can help here. I manage the blog on mental health and ESA that TakeCare posted.

What do you want to know? Ask any questions and I'll try and answer. ESA will replace IB for all sick or disabled people as it comes on line. At the moment it is only for new applicants so there isn't much experience of it.

The whole philosophy of ESA is different from IB. It's no good your own health profesionals or doctor saying you are too sick to work. The only people accepted as unfit to work are people with less than six months to live or undergoing current chemo or radio therapy. There are very few other exceptions.

Every one else has to undertake activity to get a job. The theory is that you will have a combination of support and conditionality. Conditionality means threats and bullying and sanctions of loss of benefits. This is done by DWP officials or their private contractors and not a court and there is a question as to whether it is against Human Rights.

We argue that Mental Health is a special case and just as people with mental health problems get special treatment under the law - they should have it in this pseudo legal process. Baroness Meacher makes the case brilliantly. She says that you can't ever fairly sanction someone with a mental illness for behaviour because it may always be due to the illness.

They did accept some of our arguments and agreed that if someone with a severe mental illness is sanctioned for not turning up or something like that then their illness is a 'good cause' to put at their appeal. But that just isn't good enough. Peopel with mental illness do not need to be threatened and sanctioned and then have to appeal. They may have paranoia.

Basically every one with any kind of illness has to go to meetings at the DWP and agree programs of back to work activity. If they fall down on them they get sanctioned.

We think back to work help is wonderful but not under threat. We don't think this is fair in 2009 and we think all people with serious illness should have the choices about whether they accept back to work help or not returned to them as individuals.

We want to get a campaign together on this supported by the CAB and all the disability charities. If you are involved with a disability charity please e-mail them and ask them where they stand on the conditionality and therefore bullying of the most seriously sick that they are supposed to represent.
Lisa, although you are clearly very passionate and committed to your particular cause and I am sure that this is a subject very close to your heart and that it means a great deal to you, but I am sorry, I stopped reading at "Conditionality means threats and bullying and sanctions of loss of benefits." What I was looking for was a brief independent and unbiased analysis of the two systems and how the changes affect those who suffer mental health issues. Are there such articles available?
Flyboy is offline   Reply With Quote