campaign against welfare cuts and poverty

[treelover]

There are people out there making areal killing from targeting disabled people on benefits and not just the obvious DWP contracted bullyboys and henchmen.

In mental health a charity called the Centre for Mental Health has just made a bit of a comeback , the charity used to operate under the name Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health and was very close to the Labour Government, indeed it helped it set up NIMHE, and was instrumental in making it increasingly difficult for people with mental health or learning difficulties to access activities services that were stable. The Centre pushed for services to rotate around training and employment - not quality training and employment for people fit , able and desperate for work, but just crap one size fits all provision cobbled together around the Centre's plan to 'get millions of people off benefits and into work'. .

In short, these people set out to create a bullying environment where disabled people could be pushed from pillar to post towards crap DWP funded employment schemes operated by their partners, some of the other big mental health charities. Anything supportive but non work related was closed down to suit the Centre for Mental Health - and the Government's - reulvsion of ' Dependency Culture'. Their own Dependency on handouts never figured in that equation though. With the parasitical administrative class, it never does.

Service users fought against a Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health initiative at the Surrey and Borders Garden Centre in Surrey. The Centre had targeted a garden centre service for people with learning difficulties and redesigned it as a training boot camp for people with mental health problems. They had duped people during a shabby consultation process and the Centre's activities became news when service users, carers and a local MP, Chris Grayling in fact, outed the charity's appalling mistreatment of the garden centres service users . The NHS Trust that ran the centre backpeddled and offered a public apology admitting it had treated its disabled service users badly as the recession put paid to Bumbling Bob Grove's ' millions off benefits and into work ' nonsense.

from Guardian CIF, BTL

this is very revealing, people with M.E are very aware of the influence of Sainsbury and his centres, it also shows the hypocrisisy of ministers like Grayling, they know compulsion, harrassment doesn't work with disabled people, but they must satisfy the DM crowd.

 

[shagnasty]

These organisations ,charties and governments want to act like scum ,but do not like publicity that shows them up for what they are.The more voices we can get to speak against the better.The hypocrisy of the indy and guardian opposing these measures now is breathtaking

 

[dynamicbaddog]

Autism campaigners have launched a petition against cuts being made to benefits and the proposed assessments that will be carried out on children and adults who are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance and Employment Support Allowance . Please show your support.
http://actnow01.web.officelive.com/default.aspx

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

i posted this on a nother thread but its worth repeating.

i went to a meeting on tuesday with dwp and the civil servants said that they are both pondering about how they can help people who need to move i.e changinng schools for their kids was one example they used, as well as how they're going to deal with the massive rise in homelessness that will accompany their "reforms"

they looked ambarassed tbf to have to try and justify such shit policies. we need war on the streets against this cos it's all out assault on the poor basically.

 

[treelover]

FWIW, the government has started an independent review into the medical test (WCA) for ESA. Anyone can submit evidence - details are here:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-cap-...r-evidence.pdf

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

independent my arse!

the bloke whose carrying it out was asked what he thought "fit for work" actually meant and he completely ducked the question. he's well-meaning i'm sure but let's not pretend that the WCA is anything but a tool to move lots of people from "incapacity" benefits and onto jobseeker's allowance, where they'll find their HB cut by 10% immediately they move benefits.

this government has no compunction whatsoever about cutting incomes of poor people and making them homeless. i'd expect people to be on the streets and protesting, trouble is they'll be on the streets and homeless innit?

 

[Red Paul]

Who voted for the torys and them that did not vote should be taken of benefits the working class i have spoken to who voted tory i am to shocked, I do not belive poeple they must be sadistic.
"Inevitably, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will give expression to their own ideologies."

 

[ViolentPanda]

On Radio 4's "You and Yours" today, they had Professor Malcolm Harrington, the bloke who's been lined up to conduct the review of the Work Capability Assessment. He rolled out the usual schtick about how he's neutral, but oddly, after being faced with plenty of evidence of poor WCAs being carried out. There was a cracking example of a woman who'd been medically retired from the NHS (who used ATOS for the medical) after several spinal surgeries, being found fit for all work by an ATOS examiner who wrote on the report that the back problems she mentioned didn't exist. Fortunately for the woman, her medical record and the multiple surgical scars on her back showed that the examiner was a liar.
How did Harrington react? He trotted out the "one bad apple" schtick.
Malcolm, old son. There's a couple of decades-worth of evidence about how poor some of the scum ATOS (and their predecessors) are at doing their job, which is why everyone from disability rights organisations to select committees has spent those two decades demanding that the scum do a proper job of examination rather than concentrating on maximising throughput so that maximum income can be garnered.

 

[treelover]

I think more and more we are seeing what are basically prejudices institutionalised particulalry by a certain class of people

 

[dynamicbaddog]

Emma Harrison of A4E is on the telly again this evening with yet another series.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/who-knows-best
What has become of C4 lately? Why do they keep giving this dreadful woman airtime?

 

[treelover]

@ DBD

I think more and more we are seeing what are basically prejudices institutionalised particulalry by a certain class of people

 

[_angel_]

Who voted for the torys and them that did not vote should be taken of benefits the working class i have spoken to who voted tory i am to shocked, I do not belive poeple they must be sadistic.
"Inevitably, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will give expression to their own ideologies."

I don't understand this post, but are you accusing people of not voting for letting this happen -- who are we supposed to vote for to stop this? Because Labour began all this crap.

 

[Zabo]

I don't understand this post, but are you accusing people of not voting for letting this happen -- who are we supposed to vote for to stop this? Because Labour began all this crap.

I share your confusion for it was indeed Labour that started all this including using sharks like Experian et al.

Anybody who voted in the last election, excluding principled independents are cunts and deserve all that's coming to them and you can trust the tories to deliver it by the barrow load.

 

[Red Paul]

I don't understand this post, but are you accusing people of not voting for letting this happen -- who are we supposed to vote for to stop this? Because Labour began all this crap.

Women died for you to vote. Don't complain. If you voted you have a right to complain I must say I do not disagree with you. I to have disdain for right-wing politics.

 

[_angel_]

Women died for you to vote. Don't complain. If you voted you have a right to complain I must say I do not disagree with you. I to have disdain for right-wing politics.

I'm still confused. Who am I meant to have voted for to stop all this-- what has women dying got to do with the fact there is no one to choose from?

 

[stethoscope]

I'm sorry but the 'if you didn't vote then it's your fault/you can't complain' line is such a load of bollocks. I'm amused by the jump into the sexist blaming tool though ('Women died for you...'). Oh, and do I see some anti-working class sentiment there also Red Paul?

If none of the main parties represent your beliefs then why should you do so? A choice between neo-lib right cunts, neo-lib rightish cunts, neo-lib who fucking knows day by day cunts. The parliament as it stands, none of really deserve a vote anyway - the political system is corrupt.

 

[Streathamite]

You do know, don't you, that the country is £800 billion in debt? That we've no idea how to fund the £213 billion pension gap? We have no idea how to pay the mushrooming elderly care bills? We've no idea how to deal with the lack of tax receipts from a shrinking number of people of working age to keep the schools and basic services running? Everyone was rather hoping the rich would pay for all that, except the liabilities are so huge there isn't enough to do so even if you bankrupted them.

I think you need to brace yourself for a disappointment ...

Simple. Slam shut all those tax avoidance schemes, hit offshore finance hard, sweep up all the tax (a 12 fugure sum i'm told) which should have beern claimed by HMRC but hasn't, for one reason and another, make income tax more steeply progressive, cancel trident, sell all our shares in those naughty banks at a HUGE profit (as we could do, starting right now, providing it's done tranche by tranche), cut the huge expense of thwe police's bureaucratic superstructure (and some of that of the NHS, tbf) increase CGT on all second home, non-owner-managed business assets, legalise spliff (thereby turning an £800m hit on police/courts budgets into a c.£700m earner for HMRC)....there's a huge list, and |I wasn't even trying>
We are NOT broke as a nation, there's just too much wealth in too few hands, and they keep getting away with murder - as ever

 

[Red Paul]

I'm sorry but the 'if you didn't vote then it's your fault/you can't complain' line is such a load of bollocks. I'm amused by the jump into the sexist blaming tool though ('Women died for you...'). Oh, and do I see some anti-working class sentiment there also Red Paul?

If none of the main parties represent your beliefs then why should you do so? A choice between neo-lib right cunts, neo-lib rightish cunts, neo-lib who fucking knows day by day cunts. The parliament as it stands, none of really deserve a vote anyway - the political system is corrupt.

Did they not? I can go back from the start of the industrial revolution. Working men hunged for you and me.
I do see you point and well put, sure you can find some shit to vote for, for the sake of them who have gone before us, and give all?

 

[_angel_]

Why should we 'find some shit to vote for' how does that help people who 'died for the vote'. Do you really think any of them would have voted for what we have on offer today - I doubt it I think they'd be spinning in their graves to see all the progress go back.

 

[Red Paul]

Why should we 'find some shit to vote for' how does that help people who 'died for the vote'. Do you really think any of them would have voted for what we have on offer today - I doubt it I think they'd be spinning in their graves to see all the progress go back.

They die, hunged, sacrifice life, incarceration, and torture. I find it incongruous a enlighten person such as you are saying it, [ are you winding me up ]. you mischievous lady.

 

[_angel_]

They die, hunged, sacrifice life, incarceration, and torture. I find it incongruous a enlighten person such as you are saying it, [ are you winding me up ]. you mischievous lady.

Who should I have voted for? Seriously??

 

[Falcon]

there's a huge list, and |I wasn't even trying

Almost everything on your "huge" list (with the exception of Trident) pre-supposes economic "business as usual" i.e. there will continue to be sufficient surplus income to tax, shares in banks will be more valuable than toilet paper, second homes (and even first homes) will not crash in value, etc.

Without an expanding energy supply, non of those things are possible. The energy supply is beginning to contract. A very large number of people you have in mind are about to wake up to the reality of negative equity in property and pension schemes secured on expectations of future growth that will never realise. A large number of banks that were only viable under conditions of positive equity amongst their clients are only remaining solvent because the government is printing money.

It's an understandably difficult thing to grasp, but this is not "business as usual", and the tired old "soak the rich" nostrums are archaic. It's a little bit harder than that.

 

[dynamicbaddog]

Did anyone else watch the Who Knows Best programme with Emma Harrison & Ray Lewis the other night? It was'nt as cringeworthy as I thought it would be. However I stilll think presenting an issue such as unemployment like it's some sort of gameshow really out of order.
http://www.scotnetwork.com/business/reality-tv-jobfinding-shows-just-arent-realistic

 

[Streathamite]

Almost everything on your "huge" list (with the exception of Trident) pre-supposes economic "business as usual" i.e. there will continue to be sufficient surplus income to tax, shares in banks will be more valuable than toilet paper, second homes (and even first homes) will not crash in value, etc.

Without an expanding energy supply, non of those things are possible. The energy supply is beginning to contract. A very large number of people you have in mind are about to wake up to the reality of negative equity in property and pension schemes secured on expectations of future growth that will never realise. A large number of banks that were only viable under conditions of positive equity amongst their clients are only remaining solvent because the government is printing money.

It's an understandably difficult thing to grasp, but this is not "business as usual", and the tired old "soak the rich" nostrums are archaic. It's a little bit harder than that.

except....the share prices of all the major banks are now back to 2007 levels: the govt were going to increase CGT in that category to 40% anyway, but bottled it: decriminalising spliff is piss-easy to do (the govt are too scared of the tabloid crucifixion following in its' wake), concerted action by major western govts (plus india, japan, malaysia etc) could easily crack down on the outrage that is offshore finance, and there IS £120 BILLION that could be reaped by more assiduous tax collection and cracking down on loopholes.
It is never a bad time to 'soak the rich', but now is surely the best time, when times are hard and it could provide the greatest practical relief; the scandal of the wortld is the huge amount of obscene wealth in too few hands, and the more redistribution there is now, the better for everyone except a handful of selfish parasites.

 

[dynamicbaddog]

Even the guy who helped design the changes to sickness benefits is admitting there are serious problems. He says the way the system is pushing claimants with health issues onto JSA is 'counterproductive'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8705000/8705256.stm

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Even the guy who helped design the changes to sickness benefits is admitting there are serious problems. He says the way the system is pushing claimants with health issues onto JSA is 'counterproductive'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8705000/8705256.stm

Gregg is a well-known pal of Brown so its hardly surprising that he's now critical tbh.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Just been looking at the directgov site so I can download and print off a DLA form that I'll be filling in for someone else when I noticed that they also have a pdf file entitled "can I get disability living allowance?".
It has the usual "if you answer yes to question one, go to question 2" bull, but it's the final question, q12, that has me riled up. here's what it says:

12.
Do any of the following apply to you?

• 
  You need help with dialysis at home or in a minimum care unit at least twice a week where you do not receive help from hospital staff.
  You are 100% blind and 80% deaf and you need someone with you when you are outdoors.
  You have had both legs amputated at or above the ankle, or you were born without legs or feet.
  You are severely mentally impaired with severe behavioural problems and need help with personal care day and night.

If yes Fill in the claim form
If no, you are not likely to qualify for DLA. But if you still want to make a claim, please fill in the claim form (my emphasis).

What a stinking pile of shit designed to discourage legitimate claimants from submitting a claim!

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Just been looking at the directgov site so I can download and print off a DLA form that I'll be filling in for someone else when I noticed that they also have a pdf file entitled "can I get disability living allowance?".
It has the usual "if you answer yes to question one, go to question 2" bull, but it's the final question, q12, that has me riled up. here's what it says:


What a stinking pile of shit designed to discourage legitimate claimants from submitting a claim!

What? What the fuck's that supposed to mean?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Just been looking at the directgov site so I can download and print off a DLA form that I'll be filling in for someone else when I noticed that they also have a pdf file entitled "can I get disability living allowance?".
It has the usual "if you answer yes to question one, go to question 2" bull, but it's the final question, q12, that has me riled up. here's what it says:


What a stinking pile of shit designed to discourage legitimate claimants from submitting a claim!

i know. there was a recent pilot, which presumably this is the outcome of, which was designed to "prevent pointless claims" or some such nonsense. as a welfare rights adviser, our fall back position is always, make the claim and get a decision, so at least you know. this is effectively designed to put people off claiming basically and quite outrageous imo, when you have ~£16b of unclaimed benefits every year!

 

[_angel_]

Just been looking at the directgov site so I can download and print off a DLA form that I'll be filling in for someone else when I noticed that they also have a pdf file entitled "can I get disability living allowance?".
It has the usual "if you answer yes to question one, go to question 2" bull, but it's the final question, q12, that has me riled up. here's what it says:

12.
Do any of the following apply to you?
You need help with dialysis at home or in a minimum care unit at least twice a week where you do not receive help from hospital staff.
You are 100% blind and 80% deaf and you need someone with you when you are outdoors.
You have had both legs amputated at or above the ankle, or you were born without legs or feet.
You are severely mentally impaired with severe behavioural problems and need help with personal care day and night.

If yes Fill in the claim form
If no, you are not likely to qualify for DLA. But if you still want to make a claim, please fill in the claim form (my emphasis).

What a stinking pile of shit designed to discourage legitimate claimants from submitting a claim!

Fucking hell, what on earth is that? That would stop just about anyone with a severe physical disability claiming, just because they had limbs that they couldn't use properly - or at all.