This DWP staff rolling out Universal Credit are saying exactly what claimants and even the UN have and are still saying about the UK benefit system.
But is anyone listening, if this was the US and the Trump administaration that everyone was complaining about, Trump would utter ‘Fake News’, when it is plainly not.
The senior mangement of the DWP and certainly this Tory Government need to open their eyes and ears to what is happening and not acting as if they are the ‘3 Wise Monkeys’, for they may be Monkeys, but is that an insult to Monkeys and they are far from wise, but just as the 3 Wise Monkeys, they are deaf, dumb and blind, not in reality, but certainly in their actions, or should it be, more exact, their non-actions.
Please wake up and see that the welfare system is not working for whom it should, the poor, sick, disabled and vulnerable.
The Universal Credit rollout needs to be delayed so that all problems can be overcome before more are placed on the system, while ideally the whole system exercise should be scrapped.
Even more important the small pilot in Harrogate re persons on the old benefits should be delayed, as even now the transfer could and will make them worse off, not because they maybe, but because it is known it will, the reason that these persons have been advised not to apply to go on these benefits, unless there is a change in circumstances.
It is as though this Government wishes to make life considerable worse for everyone, except themselves, now they would certainly not wish for this to occur, would they?
Yet another very disturbing account of the DWP welfare benefit process, a system not ‘Fit for Purpose’.
In Social and Health Care we are trying to promote ‘person-centred‘ principles and this should also be so with the welfare system.
Every time you apply or reapply foe a welfare benefit you have to repeat the same information you supplied in all previous applications. Even repeating parts of this information numerous time, in different formats, within the same applications.
Yes, in some instances information will change, but in these instances why not just mention the changes, be they an improvement or a deterioration, which in many instances will be the latter.
But this is too simple for the DWP or are they just trying to catch you out, as though you are lying on this or previous applications.
Yes, this may be for some persons but nowhere near the majority. In my opinion this will be less than 1% of all applicants.
Not like the percentage of MPs who will be fiddling their expenses claims, which is more likely around 10%, but that I feel will be a conservative estimate.
What you do need to do on each and every application is fully answer each question, and in doing so state and provide evidence of both good and bad evidence.
Q14: moving around
What this question means
This question is about how your condition makes it difficult for you to:
stand safely without help
walk safely without stopping and without help
How far can you walk taking into account any aids you use?
less than 20 metres
between 20 and 50 metres
between 50 and 200 metres
200 metres or more
You may be able to walk some of these distances or stand, but what effort does it take, are you in pain, how long would it take you, how many rest breaks, how long will you need to rest afterwards and many others.
You do not need to lie and this you should not do, but be honest, not only on the form, but with yourself.
Unfortunately we are not usually negative about ourselves as being negative can bring on other conditions, but negative you need to be, provided you can fully explain and, if possible, have written evidence, even an Assessment of Needs, medical evidence or anything that proves what you are stating.
No matter how long they delay the process progressing, will it ever solve the problems.
My own view is No, because to solve a problem you have to firstly find out what the problems are and where they are and then you have to have the willingness to allocate time, money and all others to find an effective solution. There is the major problem, for does this Government really wish to solve the problems, for they wish to remove as many people as possible from the benefit systems. Therefore the problems with Universal Credit (UC) are a bonus for the Government in achieving their aim, for if people are in crisis and this affects their health and their ability to live then this is achieving one of the Governments aims in reducing the number of people on benefits.
So all this Government talk is just a ‘whitewash’ for they do not want to solve the problems.
Disabled people could be at risk of violence, and even “killings and euthanasia”, because of their portrayal by the UK government and media as “parasites” who live on benefits, according to unpublished comments by the chair of a UN committee. Theresia Degener, who chairs the warns in the interview that such portrayals of disabled people are “very, very dangerous”. Her comments are even more critical and highly-charged than those she and her committee colleagues made during last month’s two-day public examination in Geneva of the UK’s progress on implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Degener herself had told the UK government’s delegation that its cuts to social security and other support for disabled people had caused “a human catastrophe”, comments that were repeated by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in yesterday’s prime minister’s questions. But her comments in the interview with a BBC journalist
In a new report out today, the right-wing Reform research group said the existing employment and support allowance has “failed to encourage sick and disabled people to work”.
“The government will fail to reach its target of a higher employment rate for disabled people without root-and-branch change,” researchers added.
Reform wants the government to cut the weekly benefit paid to 1.3m sick and disabled people from £131 to £73 – the same amount of basic pay that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants receive. The report’s authors said that having a higher rate of weekly benefit for sick and disabled people “encourages people to stay on sickness benefits rather than move into work”.
“Too many people with health conditions are being left stranded on incapacity benefits,” said report co-author Charlotte Pickles…
Being disabled isn’t some cunning ploy to con the welfare system
What would it take for the government to realise that being disabled isn’t some cunning ploy to con the welfare system? Rather, it is a fact of a person’s life that affects everything, not least their ability to work.
Despite the government’s boast that the Work Programme is helping many long-term unemployed into work (and even there one might question what kind of work), charities say that the scheme continues to let down physically and mentally disabled people, not finding them employment and failing to understand their particular difficulties in embarking on job hunting and navigating the workplace. Does this surprise anyone? It seems clear to me that the system is stacked against disabled people.
Some might point out that such back-to-work schemes are supposed to be voluntary for disabled people. However, increasingly, it would appear that there is good voluntary and bad voluntary. The bad type of voluntary being the kind that can be forced upon people if their disabled status is queried or refuted (the system is awash with cases of people claiming they’ve been wrongly and unfairly assessed).
Lest we forget, for a significant number of disabled people even the basics of employment are intimidating – from actually getting to work and having enough energy for a working day, to adjusting to the workplace as a long-term unemployed disabled person and fitting in any health appointments they may need.
Even the job search can be daunting. Job hunting is becoming more complex and punishing for everyone, with disastrous benefits penalties for those who fail to keep pace. By all accounts, job hunting circa 2015 is an exhausting, relentless, soul-sapping crapshoot – even healthy people need computers, transport and endless stamina for interviews and filling out questionnaires. How are disabled people supposed to keep up? Short answer: without sustained, focused, properly managed and funded support, they can’t.
Recently, Iain Duncan Smith mused on his department’s pathetic record in this area and deduced that, rather than it being his own failing, it must be the fault of vast swaths of diabolically prejudiced anti-disability employers – presumably twirling their evil moustaches. Does he think that we’re all idiots? While obviously this is true of some employers, it would be a bit of a stretch to claim that it fully explains the astounding failure rate.
Duncan Smith also pondered on the fact that the emplonymet and support allowance (ESA) assesses disabled people as either fit or unfit to work. “Things are rarely that simplistic,” he concluded. Well, “simplistic” ain’t good – then again, this fit/unfit business could make a soul feel uneasy. Excuse my suspicious mind, but it’s almost as though Duncan Smith is plotting to introduce a sliding scale whereupon even more disabled people are magically “reassessed” as fit to work.
Perhaps it’s time to readdress some facts that keep getting mysteriously lost in the Tory mix. First, a sizable number of disabled people are genuinely unable to work, through no fault of their own – it would seem to be a marker of a civilised society to stop hounding them with ongoing demands for proof when their circumstances have remained unchanged.
And of those people who could work, many require sustained assistance in both sourcing and maintaining long-term employment – the same help that charities are saying is not forthcoming. Without this support, trying to force disabled people into work looks about as logical as chucking a pair of damp trainers at them and suggesting they enter the London Marathon.
No one wants to stop disabled people working, to patronise or stereotype them, or condemn them to a life in the shadows. However, helping disabled people back into employment should be just about that – helping them. Instead, we’re left with a flimsy cover for herding and bullying highly vulnerable people out of the benefits system. ………..’