Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour

Originally Posted by Gary L

Don't be so ridiculous. why you want to make the connection for I don't know. it's unfair and silly.

I didn't make the connection - you did, when you paraphrased Pastor Neimoller's quote, which was about the imprisonment and genocide of gypsies, Jews, and others who were seen by the Hitler regime as sub-human.

Pastor Neimoller

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Gary L

First we went for the smokers, then we went for the drinkers. then we went for the fat people, now we're going for the unemployed.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I didn't make the connection - you did

No, you'll find you did. you took what I said as exclusively to the other.

Originally Posted by Gary L

No, you'll find you did. you took what I said as exclusively to the other.

As usual, what you say makes no sense.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

As usual, what you say makes no sense.

Without being accused of arguing. I think if we were in a televised debate you would have sighs for you trying to connect the 2. for reasons only known to you.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I didn't make the connection - you did, when you paraphrased Pastor Neimoller's quote, which was about the imprisonment and genocide of gypsies, Jews, and others who were seen by the Hitler regime as sub-human.

Pastor Neimoller

Gary L

That is positively ridiculous. One was a list of what has been targeted and the quote from which the supposed paraphrasing took place is a last man standing situation whereas the plight of others is of no concern because the writer is\was still standing.

I would never have made such a connection but perhaps a Freudian slip was at play?.

[Chrysalis]

I mentioned about osbourne breaching the code. here is a link.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/pe...-and-cheating/

also IDS (deliberatly?) gave false figures of created jobs on a bbc tv show possibly was newsnight. I cannot find my source now but he quoted a silly high 6 figure number of how many jobs are created each week in job centres.

Chrysalis if i wasn't as medically bad as i am and unfit for work yes i would welcome the chance to do this if it was all that was on offer. As i have said numerous times what i would prefer to see instead of these short term answers to long term problems is proper training setup in this country to train our own people to do the jobs we apparently have shortages in.

[MTJR]

Thought I'd jump in and have my three pence worth.

Knowing someone who works for the DWP they can tell you of many, many people who are indeed "cheating" the system. That's not to say they all are just that a lot of them are. Also, there are people who claim to be ill who are nothing of the sort. Over the last 10 or so years there has been a massive increase in the amount of people with the "blue badge".

Furthermore, some of those who are "ill" are capable of some sort of work to some sort of degree. Not necessarily a 9-5 job.

What I think they are trying to do is to make it harder to be on benefits, to get people out of the mindset of claiming benefits. Whether it applies to you or not it helps everyone as it potentially reduces the spend the government makes on paying people who are out of work.

If people are truly incapable of work then what makes them fear being assessed for the same? Is it not possible that someone's previous assessment of a person was wrong also?

As an attempt to reduce the spend on benefits I'd have to say it's a decent enough starting place. The previous system wasn't working any better and the persistent dodgers had worked out all the ways they could trick the system. What we have at the moment are a lot of "what if's" and no evidence to suggest it won't work.

John

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by MTJR

If people are truly incapable of work then what makes them fear being assessed for the same? Is it not possible that someone's previous assessment of a person was wrong also?

Because I don't think the people doing the assessment are capable of doing up their shoe-laces let alone make a medical judjement.

Me, I'd love the job centre to actually help me instead of turning me away when I ask for help. So I await all the new rules and things with interest (Not just this one). I doubt even the job centre would be stupid enough to send me out litter picking or gardening, but maybe they could find me an accesible pc somewhere and I could do my time there.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by MTJR

Thought I'd jump in and have my three pence worth.

Knowing someone who works for the DWP they can tell you of many, many people who are indeed "cheating" the system. That's not to say they all are just that a lot of them are. Also, there are people who claim to be ill who are nothing of the sort. Over the last 10 or so years there has been a massive increase in the amount of people with the "blue badge".

Furthermore, some of those who are "ill" are capable of some sort of work to some sort of degree. Not necessarily a 9-5 job.

What I think they are trying to do is to make it harder to be on benefits, to get people out of the mindset of claiming benefits. Whether it applies to you or not it helps everyone as it potentially reduces the spend the government makes on paying people who are out of work.

If people are truly incapable of work then what makes them fear being assessed for the same? Is it not possible that someone's previous assessment of a person was wrong also?

As an attempt to reduce the spend on benefits I'd have to say it's a decent enough starting place. The previous system wasn't working any better and the persistent dodgers had worked out all the ways they could trick the system. What we have at the moment are a lot of "what if's" and no evidence to suggest it won't work.

John

The fear of assessments comes from the fact that the assessments are biased, legitimately ill people get results coming back saying they fit for work. This was even happening on the old assessment never mind the new one. In the days of hand written reports doctors used to alter reports with false information after the claimant had signed the old one off. These are the barriers claimants are up against, that non claimants dont realise happens.

Estimations of money gained by government due to (a) people not claiming when they entitled and (b) people been wrongfully kicked of benefit due to rules that are too harsh is greater than money claimed to be lost due to fraud, making the latter a smaller problem.

[MTJR]

My only question is how people can assess themselves able to work or not and how people can judge that they've been "stitched-up" by assessors. For the life of me I can't work that one out.

I appreciate that people may "think" (for want of a better word) that they are unable to work with all the best intentions. From my own experience the assessments are very thorough.

Of the people I know that have been assessed to be "to ill to work" I've not heard one of them say anything other than they'd like to work if they could find a job that fits in with their health issues.

Are people saying that all assessors are "bent"?

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by MTJR

My only question is how people can assess themselves able to work or not and how people can judge that they've been "stitched-up" by assessors. For the life of me I can't work that one out.

Who said that people should assess themselves. I have no problem with someone who actually has medical training assessing me and is able to deviate from a pre-set script. Weather or not the assessors are out to 'stitch people up' is up for debate, personally I just think they are not able to do the job.

Originally Posted by MTJR

I appreciate that people may "think" (for want of a better word) that they are unable to work with all the best intentions. From my own experience the assessments are very thorough.

Frm my own personal experience the assessment was a complete waste of time.

Originally Posted by MTJR

Of the people I know that have been assessed to be "to ill to work" I've not heard one of them say anything other than they'd like to work if they could find a job that fits in with their health issues.

Yup, I'm hoping that will indeeed happen in my case. Although things are already progressing with the job front here.

Originally Posted by MTJR

Are people saying that all assessors are "bent"?

No, just incompetant / useless / not up to the job - take your pick.

[Chrysalis]

no people are not saying 'all' assessors are bent.

There is multiple problems with the asessments that I am aware off, the ones I know off hand right now are.

(a) atos origin is a private company that needs to make profit, they get paid more money if they deem more people fit for work than if they deem more unable to work.
(b) in hand written assessments it is not unknown for the assessor to change what they have written after the claimant has signed it off.
(c) in computer assessments (lima) it is designed to push towards the "fit for work" result, the doctor asks questions to the claimant given by the computer which can be completely irrelevant to the illness. luckily the doctor can overide the computer result, in these assessments the claimant doesnt sign it off, they dont see what happened until the result. assumptions are commonly made, eg. if the claimant says they can sometimes use a bus to travel, an assumption will be made they can do that at anytime.
(d) on the new assessment certian symptons of illnesses no longer score points, things like been unable to walk up and down stairs are now deemed as not an important thing to assess. simple moving the goal posts to save money. again luckily doctors can overule the computer. eg. if the doctor decides that ruling the claimant fit for work would be detrimental to their health they can deem them as unfit for work, this is rare tho probably due to (a).

personally I think the assessments are nowhere near thorough enough, some people can be in and out in 5 minutes. it is also all done in only 1 visit only. Not to mention we now have nurses and non medical staff doing some assessments.

in terms of how do you assess yourself? Well if you cant even do normal daily activities that would be the first sign, obviously also if your illness lost you your previous job thats another sign. A lady who has been blogging on youtube about this did an interview on a radio station and that excursion out for her has messed her up for days after it, the energy used for it completely drained her. I think what people really mean about assessing themselves is on the basic details, eg. someone knows if they can stand up and sit down etc. so if you know you cannot sit down without severe discomfort and then read on your report that "claimant has no problem sitting down" then you are obviously going to be angry.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

In the days of hand written reports doctors used to alter reports with false information after the claimant had signed the old one off. These are the barriers claimants are up against, that non claimants dont realise happens.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

(b) in hand written assessments it is not unknown for the assessor to change what they have written after the claimant has signed it off.

These are very, very serious allegations to make. Where is your proof?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

These are very, very serious allegations to make. Where is your proof?

I am not going to post individual case details here, unless I can find any that are already ok in the public domain, but it is one of the reasons lima was introduced.