|
|
Post by The Doctor on Nov 27, 2012 22:13:04 GMT
An internal DWP report I saw about half a decade ago had the combined figure for fraud and error to be less than 0.2%.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 3, 2012 19:15:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Dec 4, 2012 13:10:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 4, 2012 18:03:17 GMT
I'm not surprised.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Dec 4, 2012 19:04:11 GMT
Me neither.
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Dec 4, 2012 21:18:09 GMT
That is absolutely appalling, and I think what makes it worse is that we are not entirely surprised.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 5, 2012 18:28:13 GMT
|
|
Stomski
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
YOU INTERRUPTED MY SPEECH!! But don't worry. It won't happen again.
Posts: 6,120
|
Post by Stomski on Dec 6, 2012 12:19:48 GMT
Re. the disabled man being stranded in the building - I believe most evacuation policies will state to let qualified fire fighters aid in the evacuation of those who can't exit the building on their own.
I know this sounds ridiculous especially in the case of a real fire where the longer they're in the building the more unsafe it will become, but if this was the policy then it should have at least been explained when the alarm sounded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Dec 6, 2012 17:29:03 GMT
Quite, there's been an obvious failing there somewhere along the line be it in communicating what was to happen or getting the person out.
However given that this is ATOS, a company that's capable of summoning diabled people for assessments in building they physically cannot access they deserve all the grief they can get over this......
If you're having physically disabled people regularly on your premises, and this firm would be, I'd have thought that you'd have to be 100% sure of how you'd evacuate them in an incident such as this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Dec 6, 2012 21:13:16 GMT
Yeah we are all in this together, inhuman Tory scum. Andy |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 6, 2012 21:46:34 GMT
Re. the disabled man being stranded in the building - I believe most evacuation policies will state to let qualified fire fighters aid in the evacuation of those who can't exit the building on their own. I know this sounds ridiculous especially in the case of a real fire where the longer they're in the building the more unsafe it will become, but if this was the policy then it should have at least been explained when the alarm sounded. I use ATOS services. There is no such policy. And when the fire alarm goes, you aid people. It is common decency. Actually I have never heard of a policy like the one you describe in any organisation I have worked for or indeed any other social care organisation. I also was the health and safety rep fin a supported accomodation project for a while and our policy was not to leave people. -Ralph |
|
|
|
Post by legios on Dec 7, 2012 15:14:24 GMT
Given that it is an obligation on organisations to make reasonable adjustments and take reasonable measures to facilitate the exit of disabled staff members and clients in an emergency - and that ATOS can reasonably be expecting to deal with disabled clients on a fairly regular basis (excuse sarcasm) one would reasonably expect that they would have some sort of plan other than "hope the Fire Service arrive before our clients are injured or killed". Whether it is a legal transgression or not I would argue that I would consider that it is very much a moral one.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 9, 2012 10:37:42 GMT
This is one of the consequences of the cuts: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20652731That is happening on the ground. I've been through immeasurable stress this year along with many others threatened with the chop as funding dries up and I've seen services shut, staff disappear and staff take huge pay cuts of several thousand pounds just to stay employed. I don't even know if I have a job or if the service I work in will still exist past 31st March 2013. We now have to justify every hour our of existence. Yet the effects of the cuts and the shitstorm that will hit the benefits system in April 2013 means that ironically there is more social care work required than ever before with quite honestly a growing need higher than any I have seen in my working life. You really don't want staff carrying out complex support work when they're busy worrying about their own future. That's pretty dangerous. But then Mr Cameron wants people like me to work for free anyway. Somehow. -Ralph |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 9, 2012 13:19:26 GMT
It's the same in the environmental voluntary sector. The cuts will lead to job losses now and greater environmental costs further down the line. Trouble is, those on the business/economy side argue that without making cuts to reduce the deficit and stimulating growth the economy will get even worse, leading to even greater poverty and a worse environmental impact than that which the current cuts will bring. You would need omniscience to know for sure what the best course for the government really is, to create a sustainable future that balances social, environmental and economic needs, starting from where we are now. My instinct says that the current cuts to welfare and environmental budgets are wrong, and the rich should pay more to support charities (as I choose to do - not that I'm rich, but I'm not badly off and have a low-maintenance lifestyle without kids, car or holidays abroad), but that's more based on emotion than logic. I'm not an economist. I don't _know_ that spending more on welfare and the environment now and imposing greater taxes on the rich wouldn't lead to worse long-term outcomes due to the economic consequences. Part of me thinks fighting climate change should trump everything - today's poor, today's economy - because when it really kicks in, the poor and the economy will be hit harder by that than by anything they're being hit by now. But try justifying that to those concerned with the very really problems of today - you can't. The big problems of our planet are depressingly difficult. Anyone who claims to know the correct answer to them is either a liar or an idiot. Sure, those at the top of government should scrap Trident and cut their own salaries, but that won't make much of a dent and it gets very difficult after that.  Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 11, 2012 21:41:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Dec 11, 2012 21:48:27 GMT
Cutting staff pay, increasing workload and making colleagues compete against each other for worse jobs or risk being made unemployed is actually really motivating, and results in a workforce who put 100% into their work and give quality outcomes. |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 11, 2012 22:13:21 GMT
Indeed. I speak from experience. I can say no more.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 12, 2012 7:37:56 GMT
While I hesitate to be judgemental about the wisdom or not of high-level budget decisions - knowing that people much more knowledgable than any of us about finances can't agree with one another about what will work in the long term - one thing I do feel strongly about is worker protection. All jobs should be equally secure - or rather, insecure. The civil service isn't over-staffed any more (rather the opposite, from the perspective of one of those who remains and has had to take on other people's duties as well as my own), but that's because it's had a massive, generous voluntary early redundancy scheme over the last few years that's got rid of large numbers who were quite happy to take what they were being offered. Totally unfair on people in other publicly funded sectors facing the chop.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 12, 2012 19:23:48 GMT
There is no job security in social care. We could all get the chop quite easily. Government no longer wants to pay for services. Do I have a job come April 1st? No fucking idea.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 12, 2012 19:46:54 GMT
Government no longer wants to pay for services. Everyone would like to have money and use it to pay for stuff. Government no longer wants to keep paying out vastly more than it receives and go the way of Greece, and Labour would have had to face the same reality had they remained in power. If you say they should increase taxes rather than cut spending, or prioritise social care relative to other things being cut, I'd be inclined to agree, but I think it would have been bad for everyone to just keep spending money they don't have. Things are simpler in Wales. We don't have borrowing or tax-raising powers so we have a fixed amount each year that must be divided between health, education, infrastructure, etc. Every party's budget proposal adds up to the same total dictated by Westminster. Borrowing powers may come in time though. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 12, 2012 20:03:29 GMT
A civilised society provides for those at the bottom. Cutting funding to services is a false economy. It leads to social disintegration and requires more money to be pumped into the system at a later date. I'd like a politician to walk a week in my shoes and see some of the things I see and the utter misery welfare cuts are already causing and that's before the shitstorm that hits the benefits system next year. Not to mention the huge drop in staff morale in services, good staff leaving, existing staff often taking huge pay cuts and being told to do more with less resources. Sickness rates for staff are through the roof. I've never seen anything like it. I've been doing this kind of work for a long time now and it utterly disgusts and sickens me how those in power now view people in need. I'm ashamed for having voted for the Liberal Democrats in the past for their part in what is being done to people in need.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 12, 2012 20:10:19 GMT
A civilised society provides for those at the bottom. Cutting funding to services is a false economy. It leads to social disintegration and requires more money to be pumped into the system at a later date. I'd like a politician to walk a week in my shoes and see some of the things I see and the utter misery welfare cuts are already causing and that's before the shitstorm that hits the benefits system next year. I agree. They should do that, and also spend a week seeing first-hand the difference foreign aid makes, and a week in an NHS hospital, and with the police, and with flood victims and climate scientists, and in a struggling school, and with international businesses considering whether to create jobs in the UK or somewhere else, and with an economist looking at the books... and then decide what they think will lead to the least worst outcome in the long term. And whoever the politician is, however intelligent, they'd still get it wrong. In a democracy with a free media, politicians don't get to decide how civilised a society is - tax-payers do. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 12, 2012 20:35:16 GMT
I have no faith in the current political classes to make such considered judgements. And they do have massive sway over society. To suggest taxpayers do is rather naive in my view.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 12, 2012 20:44:45 GMT
Ah well, that's the inevitable point at which we should just agree to disagree. I think the type of politicians who gain office are dictated by society as a whole (as Tolstoy argued in War and Peace, France created a Napoleon-shaped hole and Napoleon filled it), and I see through my work how restricted they are in their options by voters / the media / the system in general. I spend much of my job explaining those limitations to them in my particular subject area, and how they can maximise the good they can do within those tight confines. I've yet to meet one who isn't sincere in wanting what's best for the country.
Trouble is, to get elected they have to make out they have the power to do great things, and that their opponents would do very different things.
But I don't disagree with you that they don't get enough field experience at the sharp ends. That would help. But it would help much more if voters spent a week shadowing you.
And shadowing politicians* to see how hard their jobs are, expensive suits notwithstanding.
*I mean government ministers. It's easy to be in opposition.
Martin
|
|
Stomski
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
YOU INTERRUPTED MY SPEECH!! But don't worry. It won't happen again.
Posts: 6,120
|
Post by Stomski on Dec 13, 2012 10:01:04 GMT
We may not have a perfect system, but at least the door is open for anyone to get involved in local politics. Do it Ralph, aim for a local political position in 5 years and make a real change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 13, 2012 20:33:32 GMT
We may not have a perfect system One of the main imperfections is that the more disadvantaged are less likely than most to write letters/e-mails to their political representatives. When a politician is elected, they begin working towards the next election - either because they are ambitious and power-hungry or because they feel that getting re-elected will mean they have done a good job in representing their constituents while in office, or a mixture of the two - up to you what you want to believe on that score. How they try to represent their constituents (and other interests, such as companies of all sizes contributing to the local economy) is largely informed by their daily post-bags / mailboxes. You can see a strong correlation between questions asked in Parliament / voting on motions / letters from MPs to Ministers, etc. and the constituency that they represent, because if enough people bombard them with the same views, they will tend either to be convinced by them or at least take the view that they have a duty to represent those views. That is democracy at work. (Though it gets a lot more complicated when you factor in the press, who are influenced by the views/wishes of their readers/letter-writers and in turn influence both their readers and politicians, who recognise the media's dual role as influencer and monitor of public opinion.) The problem is, not all sectors of society are equally likely to actively communicate with their elected representatives, which leads to disenfranchisement. Future generations whose lives may be affected by today's policies and people in other countries are similarly unable to speak up for themselves, and so it falls to those fortunate enough to be in a position to think beyond their own needs to speak on their behalf. Education at all levels is key. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 13, 2012 22:26:10 GMT
We may not have a perfect system, but at least the door is open for anyone to get involved in local politics. Do it Ralph, aim for a local political position in 5 years and make a real change. I shall pass! -Ralph |
|
kayevcee
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
The Weather Wizard
Posts: 5,527
|
Post by kayevcee on Dec 14, 2012 18:07:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 14, 2012 18:29:32 GMT
Good for him.
Having seen the ATOS process many times first-hand it is not a proper medical assessment. No contact is made with any health professional (even a GP) who is involved with each individual's case. Therefore it is incomplete in its nature. Also, the assessors always make a point of denying that they are responsible for making any decision (despite that being the purpose for which they are employed by ATOS). The decision is made "by a computer".
Actually having a system where direct contact is made with people's GP would substantially simplify the process. It would also be significantly cheaper and more accurate. Bear in mind that for people to be on sickness benefits they already often are required to supply regular sick notes/documentation from their GP*.
-Ralph
*Not in every case however due to strange hiccups in the system.**
**For Incapacity and ESA.
|
|
Stomski
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
YOU INTERRUPTED MY SPEECH!! But don't worry. It won't happen again.
Posts: 6,120
|
Post by Stomski on Dec 17, 2012 10:27:11 GMT
Here's the problem though - GPs by their very nature are not qualified IMO to make the full assessment either. The problem is likely that those seeking disability benefit outnumber the specialists for their specific ills.
Not to mention the fact that specialists are typically private and cost mucho $$$.
|
|
