DS Forums

 
 

Government hid reports on the deaths of benefit claimants from independent expert


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-12-2016, 19:44
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,307

A response from the Department of Work and Pensions to a Freedom of Information request indicates that mandatory peer reviews into the deaths of vulnerable claimants were withheld from Professor Malcolm Harrington, who was commissioned to write a report into the work capability assessment.

Professor Harrington, told the DNS he would have remembered being shown “such damning indictments of the system.”

“I have NO recollection of seeing any of these reviews,” he said. “Maybe my brain is failing, but such damning indictments of the system – if seen – should have triggered a response from me. It didn’t.”
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 30-12-2016, 02:23
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,496
I don't know what to say. This Tory government has been incredibly callous in it's treatment of the vulnerable. It has, without any doubt in my mind, been directly responsible for suicides - and has chosen to ignore its own culpability.

Only the Greens tried to hold the government to account on this issue at the last election. No other party tried - or came to the defence of the Greens when accused of smearing and underhand tactics.

But they have got away with it. There is no appetite to confront them - and with May they can now pretend to be a different government, not accountable for anything done under Cameron.

Our politics stink.
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 02:25
OLD HIPPY GUY
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: I survived the killzone!
Posts: 18,241
WHAT? I am truly shocked by this,.... oh hang on, do we have a Tory government? in that case I am not in the least surprised and would expect nothing else.
OLD HIPPY GUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 09:42
ChrisTaka
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 213
The Tories won the propaganda war, you remember, the skivers and strivers argument. Within that, unfortunately, fell disabled benefits. I think the problem here lies with the media coverage of it, which in my mind is a national disgrace. The Right leaning press will report on Helen who has 17 kids, a 10 bedroom mansion and three holidays a year.

They will stay clear of someone who has failed a WCA, then went on to commit suicide or passed away through reasons link to hardship caused by it. Also, can a call into question the great public who seem to fall for this crap, instead of going out and looking into this properly and making a judgement for themselves. When you study the real suffering behind the numbers, if you still feel the same way then fair enough.

This story springs to mind, tragic.
https://www.change.org/p/david-camer...led-my-brother


A majority of the public has decided that it likes the welfare policies that the Government has introduced, with press going silent, good luck with turning around opinion.

The responses to this thread says it all really.
ChrisTaka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 10:48
OLD HIPPY GUY
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: I survived the killzone!
Posts: 18,241
I am at times frustrated by the forum rules about swearing and the use of 'bad' language and this is one of those times,
how can I possibly ever state the true strength of my feelings towards this despicable government and political party without being able to use the language they so rightly deserve?

Enough to say that the strongest language you can possibly imagine might come close to the words I would use if I could,
Nye Bevan was right, but exercised great restraint IMO
OLD HIPPY GUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 10:56
CELT1987
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10,230
Plenty of Tory supporters on this forum will bury their heads in the sand and deny it's true. They will go on how the genuine need not worry and that it's only the feckless that are targeted. Which we all know isn't true.
CELT1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 11:26
thms
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,813
I'm not a Tory but this was Labour policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_C...ity_Assessment

"The WCA was designed to be a key part of New Labour's welfare reforms. The plan was: to toughen up the test for sickness benefits; to use the WCA to re-evaluate more than two million established recipients; and to encourage all but the most severely disabled to find jobs instead of claiming out-of-work benefits."
thms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 11:45
Johnny_Sinclair
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 66
I'm not a Tory but this was Labour policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_C...ity_Assessment

"The WCA was designed to be a key part of New Labour's welfare reforms. The plan was: to toughen up the test for sickness benefits; to use the WCA to re-evaluate more than two million established recipients; and to encourage all but the most severely disabled to find jobs instead of claiming out-of-work benefits."
Indeed it was, but the tories have made it far more vicious over the years they've been in charge of it. It certainly isn't a good time for disabled people.
Johnny_Sinclair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 11:53
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
I'm not a Tory but this was Labour policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_C...ity_Assessment

"The WCA was designed to be a key part of New Labour's welfare reforms. The plan was: to toughen up the test for sickness benefits; to use the WCA to re-evaluate more than two million established recipients; and to encourage all but the most severely disabled to find jobs instead of claiming out-of-work benefits."
You are correct, but its not the sameone labour brought in as its been amended that many times, remember for along time the tory government stood up in parliament had said how well it was all going and Atos were doing a great job for the government. But in the end looked what happened. The government say they sacked Atos, Atos say they wanted out of the contract as it was damaging the company as they were only doing what they were told to do by the government.
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 11:57
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,827
I'm not a Tory but this was Labour policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_C...ity_Assessment

"The WCA was designed to be a key part of New Labour's welfare reforms. The plan was: to toughen up the test for sickness benefits; to use the WCA to re-evaluate more than two million established recipients; and to encourage all but the most severely disabled to find jobs instead of claiming out-of-work benefits."
The only thing the current ESA WCA system has in common with the one introduced by Labour is the name. The Conservatives have changed every aspect of it.
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:15
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
Indeed it was, but the tories have made it far more vicious over the years they've been in charge of it. It certainly isn't a good time for disabled people.
The changes in 2011 were instigated as a result of reports and proposals BEFORE 2010. So who exactly is to blame for those?

The statistics are not held in the first place, so NOTHING could be produced. What were the figures before 2011? Nowhere to be found. The figures that were released, were total nonsense as they were about people who were not on ESA who died within 6 weeks. There were not on ESA simply because they had died. Most were receiving ESA beforehand. It hadn't been removed. Even those who hadn't yet been assessed were included.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:20
Tassium
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
It's not quite true to say only the name is the same, the essence of a private firm with money on it's mind making assessments is the same.

It's that process that is the basic injustice, the details have of course ramped up somewhat.

--------------------
There will be a price to be paid eventually. You cannot persist in unethical acts and get away with it for all time.

It may seem like the Conservatives are strong, but their increasingly desperate attempts to gerrymander the electoral process suggests otherwise.
Tassium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:30
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
So how exactly do ATOS etc make money by not handing out benefits? They get paid for the assessment whatever the outcome. One of the main problems is LAZY DWP staff who don't read everything.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:41
OLD HIPPY GUY
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: I survived the killzone!
Posts: 18,241
Indeed it was, but the tories have made it far more vicious over the years they've been in charge of it. It certainly isn't a good time for disabled people.
I don't think anyone would deny that the system needed modifying, however the Tories didn't modify it, they shredded it and completely changed it's purpose, where is the compassion? the care? the basic humanity?
they, as ever, jumped on something Labour introduced, kept the shell while sucking the innards out of it to replace it with their poor hating spite, it's what they DO, it's what they ALWAYS do, so they can stand there and say "it was introduced by Labour"

know your enemy.
OLD HIPPY GUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:55
SnowStorm86
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Lincs
Posts: 16,159
Tory treatment of the disabled is the main reason I would never vote for them.
SnowStorm86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 12:59
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,827
The changes in 2011 were instigated as a result of reports and proposals BEFORE 2010. So who exactly is to blame for those?.
The government that made the changes to descriptors in 2011 counter to the recommendations of the committe, charties and professional bodies. Some of the changes were in accordance to proposals in the review of ESA made to improve ESA, most of the changes to descriptors had a tenuous to non-existent resemblance to anything proposed and were designed to reduce claimant numbers.

The statistics are not held in the first place, so NOTHING could be produced. What were the figures before 2011? Nowhere to be found. The figures that were released, were total nonsense as they were about people who were not on ESA who died within 6 weeks. There were not on ESA simply because they had died. Most were receiving ESA beforehand. It hadn't been removed. Even those who hadn't yet been assessed were included.
The government was repeatedly asked by charities and others to collect stats on what happens to people. In particular those known to have substantial mental health problems. Due to fear of detrimental effects to health and fear of deaths. The government refused to collect the information. So is unable to provide the data.
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:01
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
So how much was changed that wasn't as a result of independent reviews and/or wasn't planned before 2010?
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:03
OLD HIPPY GUY
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: I survived the killzone!
Posts: 18,241
So how much was changed that wasn't as a result of independent reviews and/or wasn't planned before 2010?
The idea that people with limbs missing might grow new ones? the idea that people coming to terms with a terminal illness should still go out to work?
OLD HIPPY GUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:10
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
The government that made the changes to descriptors in 2011 counter to the recommendations of the committe, charties and professional bodies. Some of the changes were in accordance to proposals in the review of ESA made to improve ESA, most of the changes to descriptors had a tenuous to non-existent resemblance to anything proposed and were designed to reduce claimant numbers.


The government was repeatedly asked by charities and others to collect stats on what happens to people. In particular those known to have substantial mental health problems. Due to fear of detrimental effects to health and fear of deaths. The government refused to collect the information. So is unable to provide the data.
They would have to collect complicated and subjective data, just to produce yet more nonsensical figures. If the figures are so important, why didn't Labour introduce anything?

The recommendations of the INDEPENDENT reviews have largely been implemented.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 13:27
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
The idea that people with limbs missing might grow new ones? the idea that people coming to terms with a terminal illness should still go out to work?
So what changes introduced those?
2.1 The Special Rules Check/Terminal Illness Check (SR or TI check)
When a claimant contacts JCP indicating that they wish to apply for ESA/UC they may state that they are terminally ill. Existing benefit claimants may also inform JCP that they have become terminally ill. The definition of terminal illness in the Welfare Reform Act legislation is:
“That he is suffering from a progressive disease and his death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months.”
When a claimant is considered to be potentially terminally ill, a referral will be sent to the Health Advisory Assessment Centre for advice. The HCP will access the case using the Medical Services Referral System (MSRS) and follow a process which has been agreed by the customer (DWP). The advice provided to the Decision Maker will be generated using the LiMA application.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 14:50
Johnny_Sinclair
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 66
The two vile companies atos & capita have certainly benefited from the misery heaped upon the sick and disabled by this government.

Here
Johnny_Sinclair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:08
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
The next step will be the DWP instructing doctors not to issue sick notes...

Oh, it's already happening.

"Seriously ill man dies after the DWP wrote to his GP telling them not to issue sick notes.

Declared fit for work under the DWP’s hated Work Capability Assessment scheme, James Harrison repeatedly asked his GP to issue a ‘fit note’ declaring him unfit to work. Despite repeated appointments (and as many refusals), his GP consistently declined to issue one.

Despite having been in regular contact with his GP, Harrison didn’t know why his GP wouldn’t issue a note.

The DWP had declared him fit for work and wrote to his GP telling him to stop issuing fit notes, and the GP duly complied.

Neither informed James Harrison of this. The patient. The chronically-sick man who endured both numerous, seemingly pointless visits to his GP to ask for something his GP wasn’t going to provide. That his GP knew they weren’t going to provide. That the DWP had expressly asked that doctor not to provide, despite the patient having serious medical conditions. Conditions that resulted in his death ten months later, at the age of 55."

http://evolvepolitics.com/seriously-...ue-sick-notes/
Morlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:09
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
The two vile companies atos & capita have certainly benefited from the misery heaped upon the sick and disabled by this government.

Here
So what? They got paid whatever the outcome of any assessment.
105. Professor Harrington expressed his broad satisfaction that DWP and Atos were making efforts to implement the recommendations of his first review:
I was very pleased that they accepted all the recommendations in the first place. Obviously I think some of the things should have been done faster than they are, but the DWP and Atos are big outfits in which to make some of these changes. Looking at all the recommendations that I have made, they have either been done or are in the process of being done. There are some modifications to some of them, but in essence there is not a single recommendation that they have shelved or they have ducked or they are obfuscating about what they are going to do.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:12
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
So what? They got paid whatever the outcome of any assessment.

"Professor Harrington expressed his broad satisfaction that DWP and Atos were making efforts to implement the recommendations of his first review:"
Did you read the thread title?
Morlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 15:16
CELT1987
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10,230
So what? They got paid whatever the outcome of any assessment.
They haven't done all the recommendations.

Why you defend Capita and ATOS, when their record of quality is very poor, bemuses me.
CELT1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:34.