Religion and politics

[1949threepence 3,366]

I think there is a danger here of using one fault to explain the other and vice-versa.

Sorry Rob, I used up all my energy and time responding to Colin's points about disability benefits. I've nothing left for the banking situation. I'll read it all tomorrow and see if I have a sensible response to make.

Not to worry, we'll all agree to disagree in the end.

I can't comment on the history of the Eurozone and its economic woes, but I was thinking earlier about your (and many others') analogy between the state and an ordinary household, i.e. how a state should 'balance the books' like householders have to do, and I was thinking that as an analogy it leaves something to be desired! After all, the average householder has a mortgage - i.e. they are in deficit. They may use all the overdraft facility their bank offers - another deficit. And if someone wants to start a small business up, maybe employing one or two people, where do they get the funds to begin? That's right, from a loan, i.e. another deficit, even though that particular deficit may put money back into the wider economy from wages paid and goods produced and sold. So I guess a state is acting no different, especially if you believe in Keynesian economics (which I do) which got many a failing economy out of a dire hole in the 20th Century.

To respond to your response to my response to your points

1. I think you give current employers less credit that they deserve, I would much rather employ someone who can perform the job to the best of their ability regardless of their demands, I am not naive enough to believe that this is a view taken by all employers, and yes I agree it is going to be much harder for a disabled persons to seek employment, but things are slowly improving.

2. Apologies for any offence caused, that was not my intention, I am just trying to explain that taking a definitive view on an outcome is in effect to give up hope. Yes things may get progressively worse but you should never say never, that does seem like a defeatist view, although I very much appreciate that my position is one of an outside persepective looking in. My intention was never to get into the nuts and bolts of dicussing individual illnesses or disabilities, but just to discuss the generic topic of accessibility and benefit claims.

4. I agree with your statement, and I have never said that people should have to PROVE themselves, I am talking about an assessment by suitably qualified individuals to review cases, and I can not see any reason why this should not be undertaken. Yes the current system of assessment may be shocking, but surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility for a suitable system to be created.

And finally DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT TAXPAYERS - agreed, that was a sweeping statement that was not intended to be interpreted that way, I just don't understand the current approach of moving people into a low income tax free band, in my opinion there should be an increase in pay and everyone should pay income tax, even if it is a minute amount. It gives people a sense of contribution, and would stop a lot of the issues around classification.

Do not apologise for being passionate about your response, that is the way discussions and debates should be. Also do not take my comments as a dig at disability benefits in isolation, I would have quite easily have taken a similar stance on other benefits. I know we will never agree on a way forward, nor should we the world would be a very boring place if we did.....so we will just have to agree to disagree, and please do not feel offended by any of my comments that was never my intention

It's ok, my anger's gone now! I think the source of my frustration is how many ordinary, decent, intelligent people just have no idea what's going on. Why? Because they're not informed. If you have time or inclination, do have a look into these factors :

1. The role of one Mansel Aylward in promoting the "Social Model" of illness (a large part of which is the theory - rubbished by many healthcare professionals - that in a welfare state people deliberately or otherwise develop symptoms of illness; and that some illnesses, i.e. backache, are almost entirely figments of the imagination; this theory has subsequently been extended by its adherents to include even MS). In his time, Aylward was both a senior official of the DWP and also on the board of UNUM Provident, the giant American health insurance company.

2. The 'selling' of this theory by Aylward and UNUM in the 1990s to the DWP and all governments from Major's onwards. The evolution of ESA to replace Incapacity Benefit as a result, purely as an agent to reduce the welfare budget.

3. The role of UNUM Provident in America, where they routinely denied disability benefits to people who had paid premiums and then had illnesses or disabilities and claimed on their UNUM policies. UNUM were described in some US Courts as a 'benefits denial factory' and banned from operating in certain States.

4. The role of Atos Origin, a French IT firm who are or have been wholly owned by UNUM Provident, in administering the Work Capability Assessments on Britain's disabled, using the techniques acquired from UNUM to give seriously disabled people "null points' and thus deny them benefits.

5. The LIMA software developed by UNUM and Atos which asks "healthcare professionals" to ask the client a range of questions with a YES / NO tick box to complete, with no subtlety relating to people with complex and varying conditions. To give one example "Do you watch soaps on TV?" is interpreted by the software that a person can sit for half an hour and fully concentrate on a task.

I've barely scratched the surface. It's a long and tricky story that has evolved over 20 years. It makes unhappy reading.

The problem with the tick box mentality is its simplicity, naivety, deliberately built in bias, and most obvious of all, the total absence of a "none of the above" option. Many of the Doctors who have to perform personal capability assessments on individuals, are very intelligent individuals, and I can imagine just how irritated they must feel when a person who is patently incapable of meaningful work, is systematically tramlined into a finding of "fit for work" via the wording of the questions which must be asked, and the snapshot nature of the tests concerned. My personal scepticism in this regard applies especially to the mental health aspects of the test, which in no way lends itself to ticking boxes.

[Peckris 579]

I think there is a danger here of using one fault to explain the other and vice-versa.

Sorry Rob, I used up all my energy and time responding to Colin's points about disability benefits. I've nothing left for the banking situation. I'll read it all tomorrow and see if I have a sensible response to make.

Not to worry, we'll all agree to disagree in the end.

I can't comment on the history of the Eurozone and its economic woes, but I was thinking earlier about your (and many others') analogy between the state and an ordinary household, i.e. how a state should 'balance the books' like householders have to do, and I was thinking that as an analogy it leaves something to be desired! After all, the average householder has a mortgage - i.e. they are in deficit. They may use all the overdraft facility their bank offers - another deficit. And if someone wants to start a small business up, maybe employing one or two people, where do they get the funds to begin? That's right, from a loan, i.e. another deficit, even though that particular deficit may put money back into the wider economy from wages paid and goods produced and sold. So I guess a state is acting no different, especially if you believe in Keynesian economics (which I do) which got many a failing economy out of a dire hole in the 20th Century.

To respond to your response to my response to your points

1. I think you give current employers less credit that they deserve, I would much rather employ someone who can perform the job to the best of their ability regardless of their demands, I am not naive enough to believe that this is a view taken by all employers, and yes I agree it is going to be much harder for a disabled persons to seek employment, but things are slowly improving.

2. Apologies for any offence caused, that was not my intention, I am just trying to explain that taking a definitive view on an outcome is in effect to give up hope. Yes things may get progressively worse but you should never say never, that does seem like a defeatist view, although I very much appreciate that my position is one of an outside persepective looking in. My intention was never to get into the nuts and bolts of dicussing individual illnesses or disabilities, but just to discuss the generic topic of accessibility and benefit claims.

4. I agree with your statement, and I have never said that people should have to PROVE themselves, I am talking about an assessment by suitably qualified individuals to review cases, and I can not see any reason why this should not be undertaken. Yes the current system of assessment may be shocking, but surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility for a suitable system to be created.

And finally DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT TAXPAYERS - agreed, that was a sweeping statement that was not intended to be interpreted that way, I just don't understand the current approach of moving people into a low income tax free band, in my opinion there should be an increase in pay and everyone should pay income tax, even if it is a minute amount. It gives people a sense of contribution, and would stop a lot of the issues around classification.

Do not apologise for being passionate about your response, that is the way discussions and debates should be. Also do not take my comments as a dig at disability benefits in isolation, I would have quite easily have taken a similar stance on other benefits. I know we will never agree on a way forward, nor should we the world would be a very boring place if we did.....so we will just have to agree to disagree, and please do not feel offended by any of my comments that was never my intention

It's ok, my anger's gone now! I think the source of my frustration is how many ordinary, decent, intelligent people just have no idea what's going on. Why? Because they're not informed. If you have time or inclination, do have a look into these factors :

1. The role of one Mansel Aylward in promoting the "Social Model" of illness (a large part of which is the theory - rubbished by many healthcare professionals - that in a welfare state people deliberately or otherwise develop symptoms of illness; and that some illnesses, i.e. backache, are almost entirely figments of the imagination; this theory has subsequently been extended by its adherents to include even MS). In his time, Aylward was both a senior official of the DWP and also on the board of UNUM Provident, the giant American health insurance company.

2. The 'selling' of this theory by Aylward and UNUM in the 1990s to the DWP and all governments from Major's onwards. The evolution of ESA to replace Incapacity Benefit as a result, purely as an agent to reduce the welfare budget.

3. The role of UNUM Provident in America, where they routinely denied disability benefits to people who had paid premiums and then had illnesses or disabilities and claimed on their UNUM policies. UNUM were described in some US Courts as a 'benefits denial factory' and banned from operating in certain States.

4. The role of Atos Origin, a French IT firm who are or have been wholly owned by UNUM Provident, in administering the Work Capability Assessments on Britain's disabled, using the techniques acquired from UNUM to give seriously disabled people "null points' and thus deny them benefits.

5. The LIMA software developed by UNUM and Atos which asks "healthcare professionals" to ask the client a range of questions with a YES / NO tick box to complete, with no subtlety relating to people with complex and varying conditions. To give one example "Do you watch soaps on TV?" is interpreted by the software that a person can sit for half an hour and fully concentrate on a task.

I've barely scratched the surface. It's a long and tricky story that has evolved over 20 years. It makes unhappy reading.

The problem with the tick box mentality is its simplicity, naivety, deliberately built in bias, and most obvious of all, the total absence of a "none of the above" option. Many of the Doctors who have to perform personal capability assessments on individuals, are very intelligent individuals, and I can imagine just how irritated they must feel when a person who is patently incapable of meaningful work, is systematically tramlined into a finding of "fit for work" via the wording of the questions which must be asked, and the snapshot nature of the tests concerned. My personal scepticism in this regard applies especially to the mental health aspects of the test, which in no way lends itself to ticking boxes.

Absolutely agree, especially with respect to the mental health issues which even now aren't properly resolved despite Professor Harrington's (hired by the governemnt to do an independent report) many criticisms of the process. And the PCA which you mention was positively benign compared to the current WCA which is the route to ESA ("Personal" replaced by "Work", you notice). It is to get worse, much worse, next year when DLA - paid to the disabled whether in work or out of it - is to be replaced by PIP, with a mandated 20% reduction in the bill, irrespective of whether this reflects the needs of the disabled or not.

[1949threepence 3,366]

I think there is a danger here of using one fault to explain the other and vice-versa.

Sorry Rob, I used up all my energy and time responding to Colin's points about disability benefits. I've nothing left for the banking situation. I'll read it all tomorrow and see if I have a sensible response to make.

Not to worry, we'll all agree to disagree in the end.

I can't comment on the history of the Eurozone and its economic woes, but I was thinking earlier about your (and many others') analogy between the state and an ordinary household, i.e. how a state should 'balance the books' like householders have to do, and I was thinking that as an analogy it leaves something to be desired! After all, the average householder has a mortgage - i.e. they are in deficit. They may use all the overdraft facility their bank offers - another deficit. And if someone wants to start a small business up, maybe employing one or two people, where do they get the funds to begin? That's right, from a loan, i.e. another deficit, even though that particular deficit may put money back into the wider economy from wages paid and goods produced and sold. So I guess a state is acting no different, especially if you believe in Keynesian economics (which I do) which got many a failing economy out of a dire hole in the 20th Century.

To respond to your response to my response to your points

1. I think you give current employers less credit that they deserve, I would much rather employ someone who can perform the job to the best of their ability regardless of their demands, I am not naive enough to believe that this is a view taken by all employers, and yes I agree it is going to be much harder for a disabled persons to seek employment, but things are slowly improving.

2. Apologies for any offence caused, that was not my intention, I am just trying to explain that taking a definitive view on an outcome is in effect to give up hope. Yes things may get progressively worse but you should never say never, that does seem like a defeatist view, although I very much appreciate that my position is one of an outside persepective looking in. My intention was never to get into the nuts and bolts of dicussing individual illnesses or disabilities, but just to discuss the generic topic of accessibility and benefit claims.

4. I agree with your statement, and I have never said that people should have to PROVE themselves, I am talking about an assessment by suitably qualified individuals to review cases, and I can not see any reason why this should not be undertaken. Yes the current system of assessment may be shocking, but surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility for a suitable system to be created.

And finally DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT TAXPAYERS - agreed, that was a sweeping statement that was not intended to be interpreted that way, I just don't understand the current approach of moving people into a low income tax free band, in my opinion there should be an increase in pay and everyone should pay income tax, even if it is a minute amount. It gives people a sense of contribution, and would stop a lot of the issues around classification.

Do not apologise for being passionate about your response, that is the way discussions and debates should be. Also do not take my comments as a dig at disability benefits in isolation, I would have quite easily have taken a similar stance on other benefits. I know we will never agree on a way forward, nor should we the world would be a very boring place if we did.....so we will just have to agree to disagree, and please do not feel offended by any of my comments that was never my intention

It's ok, my anger's gone now! I think the source of my frustration is how many ordinary, decent, intelligent people just have no idea what's going on. Why? Because they're not informed. If you have time or inclination, do have a look into these factors :

1. The role of one Mansel Aylward in promoting the "Social Model" of illness (a large part of which is the theory - rubbished by many healthcare professionals - that in a welfare state people deliberately or otherwise develop symptoms of illness; and that some illnesses, i.e. backache, are almost entirely figments of the imagination; this theory has subsequently been extended by its adherents to include even MS). In his time, Aylward was both a senior official of the DWP and also on the board of UNUM Provident, the giant American health insurance company.

2. The 'selling' of this theory by Aylward and UNUM in the 1990s to the DWP and all governments from Major's onwards. The evolution of ESA to replace Incapacity Benefit as a result, purely as an agent to reduce the welfare budget.

3. The role of UNUM Provident in America, where they routinely denied disability benefits to people who had paid premiums and then had illnesses or disabilities and claimed on their UNUM policies. UNUM were described in some US Courts as a 'benefits denial factory' and banned from operating in certain States.

4. The role of Atos Origin, a French IT firm who are or have been wholly owned by UNUM Provident, in administering the Work Capability Assessments on Britain's disabled, using the techniques acquired from UNUM to give seriously disabled people "null points' and thus deny them benefits.

5. The LIMA software developed by UNUM and Atos which asks "healthcare professionals" to ask the client a range of questions with a YES / NO tick box to complete, with no subtlety relating to people with complex and varying conditions. To give one example "Do you watch soaps on TV?" is interpreted by the software that a person can sit for half an hour and fully concentrate on a task.

I've barely scratched the surface. It's a long and tricky story that has evolved over 20 years. It makes unhappy reading.

The problem with the tick box mentality is its simplicity, naivety, deliberately built in bias, and most obvious of all, the total absence of a "none of the above" option. Many of the Doctors who have to perform personal capability assessments on individuals, are very intelligent individuals, and I can imagine just how irritated they must feel when a person who is patently incapable of meaningful work, is systematically tramlined into a finding of "fit for work" via the wording of the questions which must be asked, and the snapshot nature of the tests concerned. My personal scepticism in this regard applies especially to the mental health aspects of the test, which in no way lends itself to ticking boxes.

Absolutely agree, especially with respect to the mental health issues which even now aren't properly resolved despite Professor Harrington's (hired by the governemnt to do an independent report) many criticisms of the process. And the PCA which you mention was positively benign compared to the current WCA which is the route to ESA ("Personal" replaced by "Work", you notice). It is to get worse, much worse, next year when DLA - paid to the disabled whether in work or out of it - is to be replaced by PIP, with a mandated 20% reduction in the bill, irrespective of whether this reflects the needs of the disabled or not.

I know, Peck. My girlfriend suffers from quite severe rheumatoid arthritis, which limits her mobility to a significant extent, and causes a lot of pain. Although she does still soldier on at work, her DLA mobility allowance will no doubt be under threat when the new Personal Independence Payments come into effect.

[Peckris 579]

I think there is a danger here of using one fault to explain the other and vice-versa.

Sorry Rob, I used up all my energy and time responding to Colin's points about disability benefits. I've nothing left for the banking situation. I'll read it all tomorrow and see if I have a sensible response to make.

Not to worry, we'll all agree to disagree in the end.

I can't comment on the history of the Eurozone and its economic woes, but I was thinking earlier about your (and many others') analogy between the state and an ordinary household, i.e. how a state should 'balance the books' like householders have to do, and I was thinking that as an analogy it leaves something to be desired! After all, the average householder has a mortgage - i.e. they are in deficit. They may use all the overdraft facility their bank offers - another deficit. And if someone wants to start a small business up, maybe employing one or two people, where do they get the funds to begin? That's right, from a loan, i.e. another deficit, even though that particular deficit may put money back into the wider economy from wages paid and goods produced and sold. So I guess a state is acting no different, especially if you believe in Keynesian economics (which I do) which got many a failing economy out of a dire hole in the 20th Century.

To respond to your response to my response to your points

1. I think you give current employers less credit that they deserve, I would much rather employ someone who can perform the job to the best of their ability regardless of their demands, I am not naive enough to believe that this is a view taken by all employers, and yes I agree it is going to be much harder for a disabled persons to seek employment, but things are slowly improving.

2. Apologies for any offence caused, that was not my intention, I am just trying to explain that taking a definitive view on an outcome is in effect to give up hope. Yes things may get progressively worse but you should never say never, that does seem like a defeatist view, although I very much appreciate that my position is one of an outside persepective looking in. My intention was never to get into the nuts and bolts of dicussing individual illnesses or disabilities, but just to discuss the generic topic of accessibility and benefit claims.

4. I agree with your statement, and I have never said that people should have to PROVE themselves, I am talking about an assessment by suitably qualified individuals to review cases, and I can not see any reason why this should not be undertaken. Yes the current system of assessment may be shocking, but surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility for a suitable system to be created.

And finally DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT TAXPAYERS - agreed, that was a sweeping statement that was not intended to be interpreted that way, I just don't understand the current approach of moving people into a low income tax free band, in my opinion there should be an increase in pay and everyone should pay income tax, even if it is a minute amount. It gives people a sense of contribution, and would stop a lot of the issues around classification.

Do not apologise for being passionate about your response, that is the way discussions and debates should be. Also do not take my comments as a dig at disability benefits in isolation, I would have quite easily have taken a similar stance on other benefits. I know we will never agree on a way forward, nor should we the world would be a very boring place if we did.....so we will just have to agree to disagree, and please do not feel offended by any of my comments that was never my intention

It's ok, my anger's gone now! I think the source of my frustration is how many ordinary, decent, intelligent people just have no idea what's going on. Why? Because they're not informed. If you have time or inclination, do have a look into these factors :

1. The role of one Mansel Aylward in promoting the "Social Model" of illness (a large part of which is the theory - rubbished by many healthcare professionals - that in a welfare state people deliberately or otherwise develop symptoms of illness; and that some illnesses, i.e. backache, are almost entirely figments of the imagination; this theory has subsequently been extended by its adherents to include even MS). In his time, Aylward was both a senior official of the DWP and also on the board of UNUM Provident, the giant American health insurance company.

2. The 'selling' of this theory by Aylward and UNUM in the 1990s to the DWP and all governments from Major's onwards. The evolution of ESA to replace Incapacity Benefit as a result, purely as an agent to reduce the welfare budget.

3. The role of UNUM Provident in America, where they routinely denied disability benefits to people who had paid premiums and then had illnesses or disabilities and claimed on their UNUM policies. UNUM were described in some US Courts as a 'benefits denial factory' and banned from operating in certain States.

4. The role of Atos Origin, a French IT firm who are or have been wholly owned by UNUM Provident, in administering the Work Capability Assessments on Britain's disabled, using the techniques acquired from UNUM to give seriously disabled people "null points' and thus deny them benefits.

5. The LIMA software developed by UNUM and Atos which asks "healthcare professionals" to ask the client a range of questions with a YES / NO tick box to complete, with no subtlety relating to people with complex and varying conditions. To give one example "Do you watch soaps on TV?" is interpreted by the software that a person can sit for half an hour and fully concentrate on a task.

I've barely scratched the surface. It's a long and tricky story that has evolved over 20 years. It makes unhappy reading.

The problem with the tick box mentality is its simplicity, naivety, deliberately built in bias, and most obvious of all, the total absence of a "none of the above" option. Many of the Doctors who have to perform personal capability assessments on individuals, are very intelligent individuals, and I can imagine just how irritated they must feel when a person who is patently incapable of meaningful work, is systematically tramlined into a finding of "fit for work" via the wording of the questions which must be asked, and the snapshot nature of the tests concerned. My personal scepticism in this regard applies especially to the mental health aspects of the test, which in no way lends itself to ticking boxes.

Absolutely agree, especially with respect to the mental health issues which even now aren't properly resolved despite Professor Harrington's (hired by the governemnt to do an independent report) many criticisms of the process. And the PCA which you mention was positively benign compared to the current WCA which is the route to ESA ("Personal" replaced by "Work", you notice). It is to get worse, much worse, next year when DLA - paid to the disabled whether in work or out of it - is to be replaced by PIP, with a mandated 20% reduction in the bill, irrespective of whether this reflects the needs of the disabled or not.

I know, Peck. My girlfriend suffers from quite severe rheumatoid arthritis, which limits her mobility to a significant extent, and causes a lot of pain. Although she does still soldier on at work, her DLA mobility allowance will no doubt be under threat when the new Personal Independence Payments come into effect.

She musn't give up or give in. I will PM you a few useful links that might prove quite helpful if she gets a poor decision.