http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -work.html

privatisation, works every time, remember 'we are all in this together' ... not ...

How different would the statistics be if the assessments were done by part of the government. Individual and probably extreme cases do not equate to the totallity.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2

explain in English please

they are also stopping disabled forces benefits
you have got to love Govt.

maybe we should privatise Govt. but i don’t think the greedy benefit scroungers called MPs would allow this ...

For decades now people have been categorised as disabled and unfit to work to massage the unemployment stats. People have been cast onto the scrap heap as unfit to work when in some cases they are able to work just not certain types of work. So when a system is introduced to reassess those that have been historically assigned as unfit it has been cast as evil.

There will be faults there will be cock ups there will be mistakes. There will be people who will be dogmatic and unflexible when assessing people. To then go oh its a private company doing it therefore its just because of that that these incidents happens is imho is just lazy thinking.

The assessments are aprox 80% found to be correct. More needs to be done to ensure that the wrong assessments are correct first time round and dont need the hassle and stress of needing to go to appeal.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2

so people who have had two (2) heart and lung transplants and forces personal who lose all arms and legs are fit and able to work
as directed by our so called Govt. and there privatised lackeys who judge this on their behave

i think a few so called civil servants (private and public) need to be put in a place where they maybe made to be more civil ...

How different would it be if ATOS were held legally responsible for the distress caused, time and expense spent having to appeal their idiotic decisions...

We already have. The politicians no longer work for us they work for themselves and their backers.

My parents know someone who was assessed as fit for work, started their appeal and have died before the appeal. So will that statistically mean that they were fit for work because they did not attend their appeal and so the original decision was upheld?

When I was working for the DHSS, I was, like everyone else, a proper government employee. That is my direct boos up the chain of command was the Secretary of State. By the time I had left, it was the DSS (the Health bit had been spun into a different department), is it was becoming what was or is known as the Benefits Agency. The reason for this reorganisation was to ensure that the Secretary of State was not directly responsible for the day to day machinations of the department, but was somehow distanced from it. Previously, if an office had done something silly, and an MP had found out, then questions could be legitimately asked of the secretary of state in the House of Commons, and that could lead to political embarrassment. I know this happened a few times. When it was moved to the Benefits Agency, the line of command to government was severed. The government was responsible for making the rules, but no longer responsible for how they were implemented.

Using a private company to make these health decisions is another manifestation of the is distancing of government from implementation of rules. They can say that they want a saving of £x billion from welfare payments. The Benefits Agency (or whatever it’s called now) will determine how these savings can be met, and will lay down targets for the various divisions to meet. So we get tales of targets for sanctioning claimants at the Job Centre http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/ ... ns-targets and a private health company making decisions on the ability of people to work. We have also had a string of stories of terminally ill people being referred to Atos, being declared fit for work, and they dying fairly shortly afterwards for their condition.

yeah, but remember - private sector good, public sector bad.

The agency model is purely to protect the minister from scandals. Though it has not led to a massive trim down of the Whitehall departments. As a disabled person I am at the sharp end of all the changes. The government have not thought through many of the ideas. A universal benefit does have a lot of merit, but unless implemented properly it will be a disaster. The government need to change rules that penalise couples on benefits, to the extent that it makes them worse off if one gets a job.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

I have come across many appallingly run private companies. So am not ideologically fixated on privatising everything. Some things can be run better by public bodies.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Firstly, that's no different from the way it's always been.

Secondly, the government do not work for us; they're employed by the Crown

True of the government as a whole and most ministers now have no actual/legal responsibility for the workings of the ministries they supposedly run. IIRC there was some push to get legal 'requirement to represent' applied between individual MPs and their constituents, with right of recall should it not be fulfilled. I know it was through committee stages before the last election but things seem to have gone strangely quiet since...

Of course the plain truth is no governing party in years has earned votes from more than 50% of the electorate, so the notion that any of them actually represent the population as a whole is pretty spurious. At best they represent an interest of a minority, in reality they pretty much do what they feel like until 6 months before the next election is due.

Technically they are representatives of the crown, but many from the main parties have been filling their own coffers from the pockets of a very small number of backers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.