Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
You are still convinved that this will affect people that are medically incapable of work without providing any evidence of this.
|
Punky, Again I refer you to the link earlier - there are various instances - not to forget the anecdotal evidence in this thread from those at the "coal face" per se.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
You mention a white paper but that's barely consultation, let alone law. Yet, you still you cling on to this notion that the genuinely ill will be forced to work.
|
Again, see above. There are very clear examples of genuinely ill people who are not on benefits being forced to work through necessisty. Are you seriously, in your naivety, trying trying to say that ill people on benefits wont be forced to work when there are those not in receipt of benefits who are managing to work through necessity?
Catch a grip man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Couple this with your nasty little asides trying to paint me as a nasty little Daily Mail reader who is advocating the return of Victorian workhouses and sending orphans up chimneys.
|
It was never my intention to portray you in that light. If that's how you think I and others see you then go ahead, knock yourself out. If the hat fits then wear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
You point back to some claimants going through a despute over their benefits with the DWP. Well, it's been going on years and neither the coalition's, IDS' or my fault. It is a despute which has no relevence to this article. Which sums up a lot really as to why you mentioned it.
|
You see that's part of your problem, you cannot differentiate between sick claimants and fraudsters. Even when presented with the facts you opt for your black and white "a despute over their benefits with the DWP".
It is, regrettably, not as simple as a dispute. It is a realignment and determination which adversely affects the sick and most vulnerable in society. Nobody is saying it's your fault but you'll find that it has every relevance to this article.
Allow me to explain it to you. The sick people referenced in the earlier link have been deemed fit for work by way of their Work Capability Assessments. Now, lets take by way of example the cancer sufferer. Has his or her cancer been cured or has it abated as a result of the WCA?
No, sadly it hasn't.
However, in order to receive any benefit he / she will have to claim Jobseekers Allowance as it is the only other living benefit available to him / her. Doing so will put him / her in the firing line for this "new" proposal from Duncan Smith.
Given the scenario I have outlined please explain to me, and the nation, how you and Duncan Smith - given the fact that these ill claimants have no alternative but to claim a jobsearch activity related benefit - would ensure that sick people will not be forced to work given that this very same process places those found capable of participation in the Work Related Activity Group element of the ESA are classed as fit for work or work ready.
Like yourself Duncan Smith hasn't thought this one out. He's had three years to think this nonsense up and this is all he can come up with - punatitive measures against the sick rather than addressing the fraud.
I await with baited breath your next attempt at avoidance of the facts by denial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Given the above i'd suggest you're a lot more prejeduiced than you think.
|
Yes. I'm prejudiced against prejudice - and I'm not afraid to say it.
I'm surprised you appear so affronted by the fact - sorry to have offended your obviously Victorian sensibilities.