Unemployed could be forced to do compulsory manual labour

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Until you admit it works both ways I wont take this further with you, the government is making unsubstantiated allegations about claimants, you discount it as irrelevant tho.

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/new...edical-reports

OK, lets play it your way.

I don't believe the Government figures and I have never suggested that I did. As such I'm not remotely interested in what they say. I am, however, extremely interested in what you have said.

So, back to the question. Where is your proof to back up your allegations of fraud being committed by medical professionals in relation to these assessments and where is your proof that LiMA was introduced to prevent such occurances?

Cheers in advance.

[Chrysalis]

I have linked you to an article on it.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I have linked you to an article on it.

No, you haven't.

You have linked to an article which speculates on the possibility of it happening (and coincidentally contradicts your earlier assertion regarding the reasoning behind the introduction of LiMA).

You stated, unequivocally "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." and further "(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."

Neither you, nor the article, have provided any proof, whatsoever, of action having been taken or charges having been brought against any individual (medical professional or otherwise) in relation to offences committed under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act of 1981 in relation to the allegations you have made on this forum.

Now, again. Where is your proof to back up your allegations of fraud being committed by medical professionals in relation to these assessments and where is your proof that LiMA was introduced to prevent such occurances?

[Chrysalis]

Yoo are basically asking me to give you hard evidence of a case on a public forum, cannot do that and you know it. I think you on an agenda to try and discredit me as you dont like what I am saying.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Yoo are basically asking me to give you hard evidence of a case on a public forum, cannot do that and you know it. I think you on an agenda to try and discredit me as you dont like what I am saying.

No, I think he's asking you to provide some basis for your claims, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in any discussion. If you make claims in a forum discussion, you had better expect that someone is going to ask you to back them up. Suggesting that anyone who challenges you is 'on an agenda' or is simply out to 'discredit' you simply won't do.

Mr Angry something you have to realise about ATOS is that not all it's personnel doing assessments are lets be polite and say not of good decent charector and have had problems in the past with various medical oversight groups. Being specific to me i something called ankylosing spondylitis which both my gp and consultant class as chronic.

My current pain medication is 120mg of codeine a day, 30mg morphine patches a day and i take 1500mg of anti inflammatory medication as well. That is not as much as some people are on and the codiene part is being looked at and i may be moved to a much higher painkilling tablet. Yet on a good day i might be able to use a keyboard for 30 minutes then requiring an hour before i could start again on a bad day i might be able to use it 15 minutes and that would be it for the day.

As things are looking now i could be classed as fit to work in an office despite the fact that unless it moves in across the road anymore then 50-60 metres causes me severe pain which can sometimes take hours\days to recover from. Atos assess on the very best circumstance that you as a patient can have not even the average and certainly not the worst you can have giving a very false impression of what you can actually do. While i helped with an organisation that dealt with disabled people i heard what i can only describe as horror stories about atos and their ways of doing things and examples of some of the stupidest decisions i have ever seen that included one man with terminal cancer being classed as fit for warehouse work.

Do i fear being fairly assessed and judged hell no i have no problem with that and in my ideal world i would find an employer that would be flexible enough to accomadate me and my limitations even though being realistic as i have sadly had to become no such employer exists. Do i fear an atos assessment yes i do because whatever their concern is it isn't for me or even for any company that might get landed with me.

Despite my medication i spend everyday in pain to varying degrees and will do for the rest of my life and i am ok with that there are people far worse off then me but then there is that massive majority that i want to be part of and never will be the working population that bit i am not ok with but am slowly learning to come to terms with it. I have always said there were that small group of career "won't work, cannot be bothered to work" and damn right we have to grab them by the scruff of their neck and do something with them.

But the way this government is going that group will slip through the cracks again and the ones that will be hit yet again are the genuine and legitimate is it really fair to keep doing that i don't think so and i think there are better ways.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Yoo are basically asking me to give you hard evidence of a case on a public forum, cannot do that and you know it. I think you on an agenda to try and discredit me as you dont like what I am saying.

I don't need to discredit you Chrysalis, you appear to be doing a spectacular job of that yourself.

You don't (unfortunately for you) appear to have any proof to substantiate your allegations.

You don't appear to be able to provide a Court List referencing same or a Google link to a relevant prosecution, case or appeal.

Can you guess why that might be?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

No, I think he's asking you to provide some basis for your claims, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in any discussion. If you make claims in a forum discussion, you had better expect that someone is going to ask you to back them up. Suggesting that anyone who challenges you is 'on an agenda' or is simply out to 'discredit' you simply won't do.

What would you define as acceptable basis/proof tho?
is my point.

If I posted a bbc article saying the same thing would he class that as proof, if yes then he is just been silly. Mainstream media ignore things like this.

I am not going to breach privacy agreements to satisfy him so wont post any case details here.

I have gave him basis.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

What would you define as acceptable basis/proof tho?
is my point.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in CF court

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I don't need to discredit you Chrysalis, you appear to be doing a spectacular job of that yourself.

You don't (unfortunately for you) appear to have any proof to substantiate your allegations.

You don't appear to be able to provide a Court List referencing same or a Google link to a relevant prosecution, case or appeal.

Can you guess why that might be?

I think you discrediting yourself, so we think the same of each other. You stay silent as people make claim after claim about claimants without proof as you say, then the first person to say something directly about the system defrauding claimants and you demand proof. More people will side with you of course because its the trend to back the system changes and to look at claimants as frauds.

People post similiar things on this forum every day, whats special about this one?

By the way reread the article, the specific reason I linked it is it quotes a case number.

It appears that it is not only ATOS staff that claimants are unhappy with - BMA

Doctors providing medical services to the DWP are frequently subject to what may be considered 'vexatious’ complaints, following consultations where the doctor has provided a professional opinion which has financial implications for the patient. As a result, doctors may feel vulnerable and be increasingly reluctant to undertake this essential area of work. The BMA has raised this issue of financially-orientated 'vexatious’ complaints with the General Medical Council (GMC), who has taken on board our comments. The changes in the GMC's complaints procedure, such that the majority of complaints are now handled at a local level and doctors are no longer removed from the GMC website whilst under investigation, have somewhat eased the concerns of medical services doctors.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

What would you define as acceptable basis/proof tho?

Confirmation of a conviction under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act of 1981 in relation to your allegations would be helpful. As indeed would proof of any disciplinary measures having been taken by the BMA (which are regularly published in the public domain) against any of their members whom you, singularly, allege to have falsified medical reports in relation to DWP assessments.

Mind you, had either of the above actually happened I'm sure there'd have been an unmissable, unrelenting national outcry.

All you have presented are your fantastical allegations.

Tell us Chrysalis, how did you yourself satisfy your own mind as to the veracity of the allegations you posted? Surely you must have read or accessed "proof" somewhere in the public domain before deciding that these were indeed true and worthy of putting your name to?

---------- Post added at 17:11 ---------- Previous post was at 17:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I think you discrediting yourself, so we think the same of each other. You stay silent as people make claim after claim about claimants without proof as you say, then the first person to say something directly about the system defrauding claimants and you demand proof. More people will side with you of course because its the trend to back the system changes and to look at claimants as frauds.

If you bothered to read my posts in this thread you would see that is exactly NOT my position on this matter.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

People post similiar things on this forum every day, whats special about this one?

What is "special" about this is that you are posting lies, innuendo and unqualified allegations as fact. It serves no purpose to protect the genuinely ill but instead weakens their case as evidenced by Hughs quote.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

By the way reread the article, the specific reason I linked it is it quotes a case number.

Yes, quite. A case number in relation to what - specifically? Oh yes, that's right. It's the appeals case reference number of the appeal by "Mrs E" which was dismissed and can be seen here.

Now, whilst "Mrs E" lost her appeal she has still maintained her anonymity.

I'd expect that the same anonymity would be afforded a claimant who brought a successful case against anyone who might have created or sought to create a fraudulent instrument against them.

Hens teeth would appear to be easier to find.

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Is that because they stick to a script/list of questions to ask?

Very much so, they /can/ deviate but tend not to do so because they have to qualify it adn give reasins as to why they did so on the system. That was the experience of my last dealings with them any how.

I don't have any faith in them or the job centre anymore.

I am due a DLA assessment and an Incapacity Benefit to ESA assessment early next year so it will be interesting to see if things have changed.

I am hoping to have sorted out my IT job by then so it may not apply, but we shall see.

[Chrysalis]

Mr Angry the result of the appeal is not important but rather what the commissioner confirmed in that case.
If this bothers you so much now you have a case number you can dig futher into it. I expect you wont do that tho.

Noone that I am aware off has been prosecuted which is not surprising at all.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Mr Angry the result of the appeal is not important

I'd say it was to "Mrs E".

If not then what, pray tell, were you getting so hot and bothered about if you don't see appeals / the outcome of appeals as important?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Noone that I am aware off has been prosecuted which is not surprising at all.

So your allegations were just that, untrue and unfounded.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Given that nobody has ever been formally charged with the actions you alleged I'm not surprised either that nobody has ever been prosecuted.

Cheers.