Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

here is a link to the latter, actually was hard to find as seems to be gone on all news sites.
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Sp...re_reform.aspx

Thanks for your time and effort Chrysalis.

However, as other participants in addition to myself have pointed out, what you have provided a link to is a link which not only states the Conservative position immediately post Hain's welfare reform initiatives which (quite obviously) predate the current coalition position, but which further fails to corroborate what you have previously asserted as fact.

Can you provide factual proof of your various allegations & assertions?

That would be very helpful to me.

As ever, many thanks in advance.

[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.

The atos stuff is tougher.

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.

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

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.

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.

[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.

Could we please return to the original topic.Thank you.

[MTJR]

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.

So are you saying the fraudsters and workshy don't exist? I think reports that exist in all types of media have proved that not to be the case.

I'm now not sure from what you say whether you are posting based on fact or your interpretation of the "plans" you mentioned. I'm not even sure which bit you're talking about. Either the part where people are being marked fit for work when they're not or the part about getting people back into work which, for me, are totally seperate issues.

I'd really like to take what you say on board but it's getting incredibly difficult to do so.

John

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Really?Where did you get that information?

Actually, I don't know about the specific case in question, but I have a friend who used to work in BBC news.

She was told that the BBC are given full information on all major criminal cases by the police, and they frequently do hold it back. They know because, apparently, in the event the info is leaked, they can help control the flow, but will not do so unless they know everything.

Originally Posted by Stuart

Actually, I don't know about the specific case in question, but I have a friend who used to work in BBC news.

She was told that the BBC are given full information on all major criminal cases by the police, and they frequently do hold it back. They know because, apparently, in the event the info is leaked, they can help control the flow, but will not do so unless they know everything.

But that's not necessarily suppression of a story..

Anyway I think that this really is beside the point.There is no real prof that the sick and incapable are to be targeted in this proposal.The present government aren't stupid and won't want to risk the idea being undermined by someone dying whilst picking up litter because they weren't really fit to work.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

But that's not necessarily suppression of a story..

Anyway I think that this really is beside the point.There is no real prof that the sick and incapable are to be targeted in this proposal.The present government aren't stupid and won't want to risk the idea being undermined by someone dying whilst picking up litter because they weren't really fit to work.

True, it's not, and it is beside the point really..

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

But that's not necessarily suppression of a story..

Anyway I think that this really is beside the point.There is no real prof that the sick and incapable are to be targeted in this proposal.The present government aren't stupid and won't want to risk the idea being undermined by someone dying whilst picking up litter because they weren't really fit to work.

Yes they are. Much the same as all the others have been.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by MTJR

So are you saying the fraudsters and workshy don't exist? I think reports that exist in all types of media have proved that not to be the case.

I'm now not sure from what you say whether you are posting based on fact or your interpretation of the "plans" you mentioned. I'm not even sure which bit you're talking about. Either the part where people are being marked fit for work when they're not or the part about getting people back into work which, for me, are totally seperate issues.

I'd really like to take what you say on board but it's getting incredibly difficult to do so.

John

I am not saying they dont exist, but I am saying they not the majority of claimants. Thats my opinion tho, whilst the media have also stated an opinion (not a fact).

The only thing proven is there is 'some' fraudsters. However the media have a vested interest in this, they are clearly putting time and effort into looking for extreme cases. The bbc also done numerous tv documentaries on it, and the only documentary they did on claimants been treated badly was only aired in scotland and not england.

End of the day its propoganda and people are sheep, the media can choose to pick on any part of society at any given moment and they will be believed.

---------- Post added at 17:05 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

But that's not necessarily suppression of a story..

Anyway I think that this really is beside the point.There is no real prof that the sick and incapable are to be targeted in this proposal.The present government aren't stupid and won't want to risk the idea being undermined by someone dying whilst picking up litter because they weren't really fit to work.

The bbc printed a story where david freud (when working for labour) got interviewed and started talking about the changes the government was planning such as not using GP's to carry out medicals and the private sector doing work focused interviews.

not sure if this is the exact story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7223687.stm

There is 3 key problems I had with the story I asked the bbc about.

1 - David Freud didnt back up any of his statements with proof (fewer than 1/3rd legit claimants).
2 - David Freud according to his boss, was not employed by the government which means he was not allowed to talk to the press about government policy.
3 - Some of what was published was clearly innacurate such as the GP's handling medicals which would clearly mislead the public, atos origin were already doing medicals for years when this was published.

The bbc refused to take the story down as you can see its still there.

This guy is behind much of whats happening, he moved to the tories when it was clear labour werent going to win the next election so he could carry on pushing through his plans, he is an ex banker, so quite what his skills are that apply to welfare I dont know.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I am not saying they dont exist, but I am saying they not the majority of claimants. Thats my opinion tho, whilst the media have also stated an opinion (not a fact).

The only thing proven is there is 'some' fraudsters. However the media have a vested interest in this, they are clearly putting time and effort into looking for extreme cases. The bbc also done numerous tv documentaries on it, and the only documentary they did on claimants been treated badly was only aired in scotland and not england.

End of the day its propoganda and people are sheep, the media can choose to pick on any part of society at any given moment and they will be believed.

The fraudsters may not be the majority of claimants ,but they are a big enough minority to warrant tougher sanctions to stop them .If they are defrauding the DSS then it is highly likely that a large proportion of them are defrauding HMRC by working illegaly and not paying tax .If for example 100 people are taken off benefits because they are proven to be defrauding ,out of those 100 ,50 are working on the black market ,they will then have to go legit in their black market jobs (if possible) therefore paying tax and not taking benefit ,the remaining 50 from the original 100 will now have to find work to pay for the things that benefits used to,so there will in theory be 100 people not taking benefits but paying tax.
Probably a complicated way to explain it but i hope you take my meaning

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by martyh

The fraudsters may not be the majority of claimants ,but they are a big enough minority to warrant tougher sanctions to stop them .If they are defrauding the DSS then it is highly likely that a large proportion of them are defrauding HMRC by working illegaly and not paying tax .If for example 100 people are taken off benefits because they are proven to be defrauding ,out of those 100 ,50 are working on the black market ,they will then have to go legit in their black market jobs (if possible) therefore paying tax and not taking benefit ,the remaining 50 from the original 100 will now have to find work to pay for the things that benefits used to,so there will in theory be 100 people not taking benefits but paying tax.
Probably a complicated way to explain it but i hope you take my meaning

This is down to point of view.

The question is which is worse? denying someone benefit who needs it or letting more get away with fraud. To me the former is by far the worse scenario, because if someone doesnt get sickness benefit thats it they have nothing, if then no family or friends carry them they have no way to survive. Whilst the latter is simply just some lost money which is of course offset by underpaid benefits from people not claiming or not getting what they deserve. If draconian rules are in place legit people will be turned down or forced off, no question about it. We seem to be struggling to accept that there will always be fraud and as such its to be written off, the only way to get it down to 0 is to remove the ability to claim full stop. The media managed to get HB caps put in place but again when looking at the data the amount of people who were actually claiming silly HB was a very small fraction, confirmed by the DWP themselves. But the way it was reported made it seem like a widespread problem.

In short the strongest backs can bare the burden better.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

This is down to point of view.

The question is which is worse? denying someone benefit who needs it or letting more get away with fraud. To me the former is by far the worse scenario, because if someone doesnt get sickness benefit thats it they have nothing, if then no family or friends carry them they have no way to survive. Whilst the latter is simply just some lost money which is of course offset by underpaid benefits from people not claiming or not getting what they deserve. If draconian rules are in place legit people will be turned down or forced off, no question about it. We seem to be struggling to accept that there will always be fraud and as such its to be written off, the only way to get it down to 0 is to remove the ability to claim full stop. The media managed to get HB caps put in place but again when looking at the data the amount of people who were actually claiming silly HB was a very small fraction, confirmed by the DWP themselves. But the way it was reported made it seem like a widespread problem.

In short the strongest backs can bare the burden better.

i'm not saying that benefit fraud can be reduced to zero ,nor am i saying that the government are trying to reduce it to zero ,the point i am trying to make is that the level of fraud at the moment is unsustainable and a large minority of all claims .If the level of fraud had remained at a small minority then perhaps such measures as are being proposed wouldn't be necessary.
I think the main problem is that some claimants don't understand that the money they get comes from tax payers ,they don't understand that the more people on benefits of whatever type means less money going to the treasury to pay for a climbing benefit bill

[Chrysalis]

Kate Green, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, said the most recent official figure for incapacity benefit fraud suggests it is below 0.5%.

Whats your thoughts on that? granted no proof to back it, but do you think that figure is wrong?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Whats your thoughts on that? granted no proof to back it, but do you think that figure is wrong?

I would suggest that the figures are wrong ,I have mentioned before in other threads that i do a lot of regeneration work for LA's and everyday i see people/families who do not work ,kids sitting in their rooms playing x-box ,nice tv's ,ect,ect ,my new apprentice(18yrs) of 3months is the first member of his close family to have a job ,i pay him 25% of what i earn usually he comes out with about £200 pw after tax ,a decent wage for a school leaver living at home i think and a good incentive to continue working knowing that when he is fully qualified his earnings will reach my level and he won't have to keep looking over his shoulder like his dad .If this way of thinking were to be encouraged more with younger people i don't think we would have such a problem ,and the first step imo is getting them out the house and into a working enviroment to show them that a working life can be rewarding