[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I have provided proof that there is 'plans' to use private companies paid on a results basis for getting claimants classified as unfit or partially fit for work into work.

No, unfortunately you haven't - not beyond what was previously (certainly pre 2008) considered de rigeur practice for recruitment agencies as I pointed out earlier.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The atos stuff is tougher.

Actually it's not. Their Memorandum of Incorporation and Articles of Association are available from Companies House (as are their accounts) and the contract of engagement via the DWP and the terms of reference thereof are available under the terms of the competitive tendering processes covered by the FOI.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

But at the end of the day as I already said not one person here has shown proof on people been workshy, fraudsters and the like. They have simply accepted what they have been told. It seems what you telling me is because its someone who is in a profession then accusations against them are somehow more serious than an accusation against a claimant.

I would point you to the DWP statistics backed up by prosecution records such as this (of which there are many thousands across the UK). The difference between your position and one of logic is that logic can provide clear and easily identifiable examples of the abuses that have lead to the current situation. Not "heresay" nor "rumour" but factual abuses. You, on the other hand, are adopting the old "Fingers in ears attitude".

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

All documents I have seen are offline and I dont have ready access to, the people who would have made the decision to take things further such as taking legal action against someone like atos origin chose not to do so.

Why?

If, as you have alleged they have access to information and proof as you have alleged then they are, moreso than the Government, betraying the sick and ill whom you would have us all believe are most at risk.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The primary concern is getting people their benefits and winning appeals. Also understand I have never directly accused doctors of fraudelently lieing on reports,

Errr...I think you'll find that you said "In the days of hand written reports doctors used to alter reports with false information after the claimant had signed the old one off".

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I said that there are reports been changed post medical and incorrect information reported regarding claimant's capabilties. In situations where the appeal has been won and the DWP backed down on these reports, it typically gets played down.

No, I think you'll find that you are attempting to backtrack by incorrectly interpreting the comments of the adjudication in relation to "Mrs E's" dismissed appeal which I provided a link to earlier.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

When I have hours spare (which I probably will need) I will look into online evidence of atos origin, until then its a take it or leave it. Its a shame you not so agressive in persuing evidence from the DWP and government on their own claims such as.

5 billion lost to benefit fraud each year.
majority of incapacity benefit claimants capable of work.

Yes, please do take as many hours as you like. I, and others, await your factually researched reply. I'm rather more proactive, dogged and aggressive in researching facts (whether as stated by the DWP or others) than what might be normally considered "comfortable" by certain parties.

You, of all people, I would have thought would have realized that.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The reason evidence is hard to come by is because atos origin are protected from freedom of information requests. In effect the only way possible is either due to a leak or spying.

Not so, for reasons pointed out earlier. I rather suspect that "The reason evidence is hard to come by" which might support your rather preposterous assertions is, quite simply, because it does not exist.

I am, of course, open to correction.