Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
I get the impression that you seek to defend the current system at every opportunity. I am no expert in this area but reading a few of the recent pages of this thread, your position is to deny any problem and then argue from that position.
A quick check shows:
Complaints about PIP assessments up 6,000 per cent in three years
Statistics like this clearly show such a system is cleary indefensible and needs urgent reform yet you, and please correct be if I am wrong, seem to deny this. Why is this?
Surely, in any compassionate society, such a system that is clearly distressing the very people who need help the most, is morally unfit for purpose. |
I'm pointing out facts.
Any major change to any of the Welfare systems by whichever government, has a "bedding down" period where rules are clarified.
EG People complain about somebody with a recently discovered tumour being denied ESA. The article pointed out that they were denied it because they had a partner who was working. They hadn't been assessed, never mind turned down. The article also stated that they had been awarded PIP anyway.
Whether the system should be changed where there is a partner, so they get some money(not the full ESA amount) is another matter. Labour had a lot of years to implement changes, and didn't.
On the "bedroom tax". Rules that have been in place for decades with the private rented sector, are suddenly complained about. Again, if they were that illegal or unfair, then Labour had plenty of opportunities to change things.
Eg Somebody dies whilst in the Jobcentre. It is claimed by somebody they had diabetes and had been found "fit for work". As my links showed, it doesn't by itself make you "unfit for work". Additionally, it was revealed he hadn't been found "fit for work", and had been attend the jobcentre for around a year.
Time after time, when a specific example is used, the truth is later on in the article. People too readily buy into the tone of the headline, without reading and comprehending the full article. My personal experience with the DWP is similar to that. They buy into the "headlines", and don't read and comprehend the whole application and evidence. The classic one, is where they phone you up to supposedly give a full verbal explanation of their decision, and don't explain a single point of anything. They just keep reiterating the line "we've looked at all the evidence". The legal purpose of the explanation is that it's meant to clearly demonstrate they have looked at all the major points raised, and explained their reasoning. The legal intention is that even if the claimant doesn't agree with it, they must understand it.
Quote:
|
36.The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration.
|
I suppose that in essence, is what I try to do in this thread.