Archive for February, 2017



Photo provided by Family

Joanne Lee Stephens was utterly disgusted and posted on social media disability forum the plight of her brother Edward Lee failing his assessment.


This is my brother Edward Lee who was diagnosed with cancer of the jaw and Lymph Nodes.
On the 04/01/2017 my brother was admitted to hospital for an operation to save his life.
On the 5/01/2017 my brother had his operation and very ill when he left theatre.

On the 6/1/2017 ATOS did an telephone assessment to decide his fitness for work.

On the 23/02/2017 DWP wrote back stating that he had scored ZERO points even though he is on very high doses of Morphine as well as other Morphine tablets to kill the pain.

My brother is confined to bed unable to eat still and the cancer has made its way through his neck into the chest
His benefits were immediately stopped and any benefits that were owed were refused.
My brother also has a long list of health problems but ATOS told the DWP his cancer is not life threatening.


The appalling way this government treats very sick people is nothing short of criminal. Many are rightfully denied  support for the state when needed. The state peddles lies about languishing on the state while ‘hard working taxpayers foot the bill is just wrong and not true. Now if you don’t need a DS 1500  to state you have less than 6 months to live  you ain’t dying quick enough to garner state support.

Chronically sick people are being denied access to support even when they have medical evidence in front of them which is disregarded as they think behavioural changes need to happen with claimants to weed out the ones sponging off the state purse. There are many stories highlighted now where denial of support is common place among the corridors of power at DWP. In fact not once is chronic illness mentioned  which affect so many and which are often hidden disabilities. this week many changes were also announced to change PIP (Personal Independence Payments ) another benefit designed to support disabled and chronically sick people with the extra costs they face

How much longer can the general public turn a blind eye to the suffering of thousands of people without saying that’s enough this stops now? We also have later in year the prospect of further changes to the work capability process which was announced in the Green Paper ‘Improving Lives’ by the New Tory Minister for DWP Damien Green.  Labour minister Debbie Abrahams a former public health consultant called these new changes as dangerous.

Even Lib Dems Lords have motioned a Bill to stop these changes

This is state sanctioned torture for those unfortunate to rely on the state for support during difficult times in their lives.

Meanwhile the WCA process continues to terrify those on Employment and Support allowance which has in some case resulted in fatalities, while making those with MH live in fear . It is time for public to stop believing the press and ministers and start to question their consciousness of whether they are going to defend the human rights of the very people they oppress and stand up and say enough is enough to those in the corridors of power whose aim is to demolish the welfare state so no one will be entitled to state support in the future with an ideological agenda to cut the welfare bill costs by any means necessary and ignore the suffering it is causing to those claiming and their families. There is plenty of research out there now both in HOC library ,DWP select committee evidence and Independent Research to highlight this flawed assessment process which should be scrapped  immediately.


This has to stop now.


UPDATE:  a second story in the matter of days


The Human Cost Of Austerity



What is the Human Cost of Austerity?

Well for most working people it not affected them yet, they actually have been least hit, unless you’re on low pay poverty wages .The pensioners are ‘untouchable’ as far as political ideology is concerned,but for some of the most vulnerable groups they have been affected the most and they are ones least likely to be able to take the hit of both financial and personally as they have least means for survival. the last 6yrs has seen sick & disabled people penalised the most, resulting in fatalities that should shock anyone with a ounce of humanity in their souls.

Why has this been allowed to happen I hear people cry, well I will tell you why …because you allowed it to happen by not standing up for a fair society for all!

A colleague Kitty Jones summed up this in one of her thought provoking quotes Read more here ..

Neoliberalism is based on competitive individualism. In such a competitive system it’s inevitable that there will be a few “winners” and many “losers”. That’s what “competition” means. It means no rewards for most people – inequality and poverty for the 99%. It’s not possible to “work hard” to change this. It’s built into the very system. Therefore it’s hardly fair or appropriate for a government to blame and punish people for the failings of their own imposed dominant ideology – a political and economic mode of organisation – which most ordinary people did not intentionally choose.


The fact is this Government blames anyone and everyone but themselves and they spout on about ‘people taking responsibility’ which is all well and good in ideal world but the one we live in now is a far more dark and frightening space. It uses behavioural conditioning to pit one section of society against the other  in a global hunger games like experiment you would see in an apocalyptic movie, but its not a movie , for many it a reality of daily struggle in some mind bending experiment of your nightmares.

Again Kitty Jones points this out well

The Tory mindset is very disciplinarian. In their view, everyone else needs “corrective treatment” to ensure that society is shaped and ruled the way they think it ought to be. The government believes that rather than addressing social problems – many of which are created and perpetuated by their own policies, such as growing inequality and absolute poverty – can be addressed by “incentivising” people to “behave” differently. In other words, they believe that people can be punished out of poverty, being ill, being out of work, and being less “competitive”, cost effective citizens, letting down the conservative’s constructed, overarching neoliberal state.

The government is conducting behavioural experiments on the public without their consent, to fulfil the needs of government, rather than the needs of the public. This turns democracy totally on its head. Citizens are being coerced to act as the government deems necessary to fulfil conservative notions of cost reduction and “efficiency” – such as their notion of a low tax, low welfare society. “Living within our means” means austerity for the poorest, tax cuts for the rich => growing inequality and poverty.

The government mindset: “Psychology as a behaviorist views it is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is … prediction and control.” From –…/GCSBehaviourChangeGuideJu…

And: “Behaviour change is one of the primary functions of government communications – helping change and save lives, helping the government run more effectively as well as save taxpayer’s money.

Our approach is to use a mix of awareness raising, persuasion, practical help and behavioural theory, to demonstrate why changes in behaviour are important and to make these changes easy for the public to adopt.”

Making changes “easy to adopt” sounds like choices are being offered, however, the use of “incentives” includes rigid, coercive measures such as welfare sanctions and savage cuts to public support and services.

A government that imposes policies on citizens using coercion is not “democratic.” It’s a government displaying some very worrying totalitarian tendencies.



As this governments ideology marches on towards it goal of dismantling the Welfare State,NHS social care and redefining chronic sickness & disability (as in to eradicate it ) ,and  child poverty at alarming rates, a government which stokes racial disharmony , and homelessness which will swamp streets in every part of the UK then we are heading for very troubled waters indeed . In April the two child policy comes in, further cuts to a variety of benefits that people receive and the process of getting them made almost impossible to get, and enforced treatment of some claimants to make them fit for work with a very dangerous Health & Work programme  later this year,  will cause preventable harm to many and most likely more deaths that go hand in hand with Mental Health issues, poverty,malnutrition etc that we can barely see the apocalypse coming as so many are blinded by their own survival and greed.


What sort of legacy are we leaving our children and future generations? One where human life is deemed worthless and disposable, christ we only need to look at what damage we do to the planet we live on and the destruction that is causing to see this a road of no return.

Unless we wake up, Mad Max will become a reality and those left behind will not have the coping strategies to cope and the knowledge of their forefathers will be lost forever.

They say history repeats itself, well yes it does, because we still haven’t learned to value what’s precious and not repeat past horrors like both wars where humans are brutalised and then become emotionally disconnected because it is too painful to see or feel. This has to change if we are to make a real difference and that change can start with ourselves and join together to unite against what is wrong.

People think they do not have power to change things so become accepting but collectively we do have power  and thats what scares governments the most. It is time to wake from your slumber and rise up like lions to defend life and create a better world for all.

It is  time to put our differences aside and work together as a collective to achieve changes we wish to happen!

Psychological Wellbeing and Work-Mo Stewart










Guest Blog by Mo Stewart

Dear Christian van Stolk

Re: Psychological Wellbeing and Work

Please excuse this unsolicited contact by an independent researcher in Cambridge.

I have read with interest the Psychological Wellbeing and Work report, as conducted by RAND Europe and funded by the Contestable Policy Fund and, FYI, please be advised that I am a former healthcare professional in my previous career.

I shall copy in the Secretary of State for Health, who now leads on mental health, and his Shadow together with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and his Shadow.

Now in my 8th year of independent research into the ongoing welfare reforms in the UK, as guided by neoliberal politics and strongly influenced by American social security policies which have had a detrimental impact on claimants, may I please draw your attention to the book ‘Cash Not Care: the planned demolition of the UK welfare state’, which has achieved critical acclaim since its publication in September 2016.

To that end, may I suggest you invite access to the research by contacting my publisher and inviting a review copy of the book.

 This recent book review may be helpful:

It is cause for continued concern that major DWP policies, often negatively impacting on the wellbeing of some very ill and vulnerable people, are invariably introduced using research commissioned by the DWP, whilst disregarding the vast catalogue of distinguished research evidence as provided by a variety of academic experts when not commissioned by the DWP and whose funding is not linked to political ideology.  Please see attached examples of academic excellence.

It is noted that your report refers to ‘work’, which exclusively identifies with paid employment and disregards the beneficial nature enjoyed by an army of volunteers in the UK, many of whom are chronically ill or profoundly disabled and for whom a return to paid employment is neither practical nor inducive to their wellbeing. As a volunteer, it is possible to benefit from a working environment with colleagues and a purpose when well enough and enjoying a ‘good day’.  There is no-one to make accusations when too ill to leave the house, with a diagnosed condition that will never improve regardless of DWP intimidation and threats.

In keeping with reported comments by David Freud, all DWP commissioned research seems to presume that anyone in receipt of out-of-work disability benefits should have access to the benefits for the short-term, with no acknowledgement at all that many, many health conditions are permanent, cannot improve  especially with endless intimidation and coercion by the DWP, and that there is no evidence whatsoever other than totally discredited DWP commissioned research of the claimed one million people on out-of-work disability benefit who should or could return to work.

It is also noted that a report identified as ‘Psychological Wellbeing and Work’ disregards the ongoing identified preventable harm created by the DWP, the relentless political manipulation of the public with claims for which there is no foundation, suggesting that 75% of claimants of out-of-work disability benefits are ‘inactive’,  ‘bogus’, ‘idle’, ‘skiving’, ‘workshy’ and ‘scrounging’.  This has created a situation where chronically ill people, who are not capable of paid employment, now live in fear of the DWP following relentless coercion and intimidation, aided by the national press, which led to a 213% increase in disability hate crimes in the UK during the Coalition government’s term in office, and genuine claimants now living in fear of applying for welfare funding to which they are entitled, to this nation’s everlasting shame.

There are now claimants who have starved to death in the UK, quite literally, as the unreserved and savage use of sanctions has been imposed by the DWP in an effort to force compliance of the unprecedented DWP welfare ‘reforms’ on those least able to protest.

The most vulnerable in society are paying a high price for the political ideology of neoliberalism, some with their lives.

Suicides and deaths are the tip of the iceberg of misery and suffering on an unimaginable scale experienced by those who

are physically or mentally unfit to work, as the government implements an increasingly punitive and authoritarian regime

against benefit claimants. Vulnerable people are left destitute by sanctions that suspend or end their benefits if they fail

to comply with orders to attend ‘assessments’, ‘training courses’, or submit the required number of job applications.

Psycho politics, neoliberal governmentality and austerity

Philip Thomas

Self & Society Journal

Volume 44, 2016 – Issue 4

Perhaps, when considering future interventions for mental health, Consultant Psychologists and Psychiatrists who are not politically motivated could be consulted as they actually have clinical experience of working with ‘common mental health’ problems, which should not imply that they are not serious problems, and they are less inclined to have the welfare budget as their top priority as opposed to the wellbeing of often very ill patients.

It seems unlikely that more coercion by Jobcentre Plus and the DWP, when masquerading as psychological support, is likely to benefit sufferers of mental ill health, who are not known to respond well to relentless intimidation with endless threats of sanctions and the possibility of starvation close to their lived experience.

The travesty of this ongoing government imposed human suffering, where chronically ill people in receipt of welfare benefits are presumed to be bogus, was adopted due to the introduction of neoliberal politics, the outsourcing to private companies very lucrative DWP contracts and the failure to audit the contracts.  Chronically ill people have suffered and died due to political ideology that is unrelated to the health or the welfare of the claimants, and was motivated by the desire to reduce welfare costs regardless of human consequences. The fact that the DWP have refused to publish updated mortality totals of those who have died following the totally discredited Work Capability Assessment may alert you to the ongoing problems, as faced by those least able to defend themselves against this ideological assault.


I would alert you to the fact that a great deal of the identified increased mental health problems are due entirely to the DWP policies of recent years, where all chronically ill and disabled people in need of welfare benefits are presumed to be bogus unless proven otherwise, the constant savage rhetoric in the national press, the increases in disability hate crimes and the fact that the British public have been successfully misdirected on route to the UK eventually adopting private healthcare insurance to replace the welfare state.

Your research will no doubt benefit administrators in the DWP and the DoH, but will not benefit anyone suffering from a common mental health problem as enforced ‘therapy’ may well now be added to their many burdens for the enormous crime of being too ill to work. The fact that what was once guaranteed and vital financial support has been removed actually guaranteed an increase in the onset of mental health problems, for those who are physically disabled as well as for those with a mental health diagnosis as their primary health problem.

I trust this information may be helpful.


Mo Stewart

Disabled veteran (WRAF)

Disability studies researcher

Retired healthcare professional

The Health & Work Programme ~is Work really a ‘Health Outcome’ ?




One thing this government doesn’t get is the difference between a person with Chronic Illness and Disability, they simply cannot join up the dots. Work is NOT a ‘Health Outcome’ if you are disabled or chronically ill!

What I mean is you can be well overall and have a disability but, by the same token, a person with chronic ill health will have to battle with much more and it this that disables them.

Reading the Green Paper for Health and Work Programme which the Government plans to inflict on JSA/ESA claimants in the faint hope it will half the disability gap is frankly a joke, given that the disability gap hasn’t changed in a very long time.  It is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It’s un-achievable because chronic ill health and disability are two seperate things for which I will explain my reasoning in more detail. This is a failure by governments over the last 4 decades to grasp, when trying to reduce chronic ill health and disability to mean minor obstacles to employment.  They are not minor on any level, when we still do not have accessible transport or access to buildings. Many disabled people who do work are now threatened with the loss of employment, which enabled them to be in work and sustain some independance,  as they are now having their Motability cars removed under PIP, thus preventing them from going to work and, lastly, for reasonable adjustments to be put in the workplace as standard procedure.

One thing for sure, it is blatantly obvious that it will be the same contractors/sub-contractors who are going to implement this false ideology.  It will just depend on what they choose to accept given the loaded options which they are in control of, it will be another work programme on the cheap. Fact is this government want the cheapest option for them, rather than seriously address the issues and invest in disabled people which would cost them an eye watering amount of money.  If they really wanted to support people into work, those that could work anyway and then just admit that a good proportion of people simply cannot work because of the barriers they face in doing so, as well as their chronic ill health means they are too sick to work. The rhetoric of the last 6yrs has been the idle,workshy,demonisation of people who with right support could work and want to work, but find they are locked out  of doing so. The general public swallowed the rhetoric hook line and sinker.

Why employers don’t take on sick & disabled people is due to the following:

1) Employers are concerned about employing disabled people due to sickness absences, and the liabilities that would need to be addressed such as  health and safety regarding sustainability, reliability, safely to maintain a 9-5  job 5 days per week.

2)Without the government giving them some assurances via incentives to take disabled people on, this could lead to bullying in the workplace as productivity is linked to profit margins.

3) The able bodied complaining about being paid same when the disabled counterpart produces less due to capability/disability, although this will not always be the case, causing discourse and resentment in the workplace.

The employer will always choose the able bodied over the disabled or chronically sick person.  Fact!

Now we don’t have a magic solution to all problems that could arise but what worries most people more than anything is the government’s plan to make this ‘mandatory’, which if you fall on your backside, then you are being set up for failure resulting in a waste of public money on another failed scheme, just so the figures look good to the public that they are helping people into work.

Yet again those with Mental Health are the main targets along with musculoskeletal group of claimants. This is why I think this government are targeting this Group. Not that this is acceptable as High Courts have already ruled regarding the discriminatory nature of this government towards this group of claimants.

So what are the proposed options? Lets look at these in more detail. Non are 100% satisfactory by any means. In fact, most are just another train crash to the participants who this will be inflicted upon, it just means the level of whether you survive it or not is the crux of these duplicitous proposals to the health and wellbeing of claimants and do they meet the Equality Act 2010? The following  are  taken from a Health and Work Report commissioned by DWP & the DoH in a joint collaboration.


Option 1: Embed vocational support based on the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model in primary care settings. The key principles of IPS are specified and the model has been tested in secondary care settings for people with severe mental illness. This intervention would be accessed through services offering psychological therapy or even through GP practices.

What it means: Embed model vocational support based on the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) in IAPT or other suitable psychological therapy services. IPS is a fidelity/specified model and has been tested in secondary care settings for people with severe mental illness. IPS would be offered through IAPT (as currently is the case in some locations) and referrals to the IPS service would be made by IAPT therapists. A greater group of individuals with common mental health problems would be able to have access to evidence-based support that addresses both their mental health problem and supports them into employment. This option would also place more employment advisers (EAs) in primary care, and increase the number of EAs overall. On the basis of available evidence, we estimate a benefit-cost ratio of 1.41. This means that for each £1 spent to achieve an employment outcome, the Government would save about £1.41. This option has a relatively high cost per participant (about £750) and appears particularly effective in terms of achieving an employment outcome compared to the other options proposed. IAPT is open for individuals who are in and out of work and it creates incentives to move them off sick pay or benefits. While the route into IAPT is through referral by GPs, individuals can self-refer, and Jobcentres and employers may encourage people who need help to self-refer.

Option 2: Use group work in employment services to build self-efficacy and resilience to setbacks that benefit claimants face when job seeking. This intervention would be based on the JOBS II programme that has been tested in several countries but not yet in the UK. It would be accessed through Jobcentre Plus but delivered in neutral settings. Job Club In effect.

What it means: Use group work in employment services to build self-efficacy and resilience to setbacks that benefit claimants face when job seeking. This intervention would be based on the JOBS II model (also known as the ‘Winning New Jobs’ programme). The focus of JOBS II is to build resilience and inoculate the participant against setbacks in the job searching process. The approach has a supporting evidence base as to its effectiveness. The intervention could be offered through Jobcentres, whose advisers could assess participant suitability using an employment strengths and needs assessment tool or, if necessary, other agreed criteria. Other referral paths could be considered such as IAPT and the Work Programme. The intervention would target the Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) group or the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) group before they enter the Work Programme. The programme will need to be modified for the ESA group. JOBS II costs around £875 per participant. The annual net benefit to the Government would be about £280 per employment outcome with an estimated benefit-cost ratio of 1.07. This means that for each £1 spent to achieve an employment outcome, the Government would save £1.07. This policy option has the highest estimated cost per participant of all options. It appears reasonably effective in terms of achieving employment outcomes compared to the other policy options proposed (though less effective than the estimated effectiveness of Option 1).


Option 3: Provide access to online mental health and work assessment and support. This intervention would build on models of online mental health assessment and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (that have been tested). It would include a vocational element, which would have to be developed, and it could be open to the general population.

What it means: Provide access to online mental health and work assessments and support. This option would build on eHealth models of online mental health assessment and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) (which have been tested) with a vocational element, which would need to be developed. The service could potentially be opened up to the general population (including the in-work group). People with common mental health problems often find it difficult to actively seek and obtain support. Providing online assessments and interventions will enable greater access to specialist services which have an inbuilt vocational element. This in turn could lead to better health and employment outcomes for these individuals. Careful consideration would need to be given to where the platform would be hosted and to its functionality. It could be hosted in the NHS. The platform could combine assessment of common mental health problems with signposting and potentially treatment (such as Computerised CBT). There is very little information on likely costs of the intervention. We estimate the cost between £200 and £400 per participant including set-up and licensing fees, though this per participant ratio is likely to fall as scale is increased. There are challenges with measuring employment impacts. This intervention is the least costly per participant, and is less effective in achieving employment outcomes compared to the other options


Option 4: Jobcentre Plus commissions third parties to provide a telephone-based specialist psychological and employment-related support. Telephone based services offered through this intervention would be very similar to the support provided by Employee Assistance Programmes and models designed for the Work Programme. It would be offered access through Jobcentre Plus.

What it means: Telephone-based services offered through this model would be similar to Employee Assistance Programmes and interventions designed for specialist service provision in the Work Programme. In this case, the intervention would be used for the JSA group or ESA group before they enter the Work Programme. Jobcentres would assess claimants using an assessment tool and refer them to the service. We estimate a benefit-cost ratio of 1.12. This means that for each £1 spent to achieve an employment outcome, the Government would save £1.12. Compared to other options proposed, this option has a low cost per participant (about £ 250), is not as effective in terms of achieving employment outcomes, but can potentially reach a good number of people with common mental health problems. Improving the employment outcomes of those with common mental problems is a complex issue. There is no single ‘one size fits all’ solution. It is likely to need a variety of interventions. The policy options proposed are complementary. Where we have data, the benefits to the Government are estimated to exceed the costs. They have slightly different aims and client groups. They offer different approaches, some more intensive than others. They have different estimated costs per participant and levels of effectiveness. They imply different models of integration, commissioning and funding. The aim should be to test of the effectiveness of each.

“These policy options are complementary – they serve slightly different objectives and client groups. They imply different models of integration, commissioning and funding. They have different estimated costs per participant but for most the benefits to Government are estimated to exceed the costs, providing a case for investment. In all business cases, we see an employment outcome as a person moving from sickness or unemployment benefits into employment for a period of at least six months. The four policy options combine different approaches: intensive individual case management; group support; online; and telephone-based intervention”.

Where is the evidence that work pays? It’s a falsehood. They can’t find jobs (750,00 current vacancies) for able bodied unemployed with 2.3 million out of work, let alone find employers to take on chronically ill and disabled people and all that goes with that.

I was privileged to attend the RI WORLD CONGRESS , 25–27 October 2016 Edinburgh International Conference Centre, Scotland.  What they all waffled on about was the ‘utopian view’ that disabled people are being sidelined and they wanted to change that, so disabled people would be treated the same in society and have same dreams and bloody aspirations as ‘Mr or Mrs Normal’ person to get work, be included in society and then they rolled out the olympic super crip video to inspire us all into action.

Well, real lives of chronically sick and disabled people are not like that. Most aspire just to survive the cruelty of the WCA or PIP assessments and be left alone to manage their complex lives the best way they can. It is amazing that a few chronically ill or disabled people achieve great feats and also  are very successful, that I would never knock, but we cannot all be super heroes either as they like to portray in the media hype.

There are some disabled people who want to work, 45% do successfully but very few chronically sick people work due to the complex nature of their illnesses which disables them. I thought I was in a twilight zone, envisioning all these wonderful jobs would be created  and mean that they were wanting to put in place all reasonable adjustments one would need if you could move towards work,  fabulous accessible transport would no longer be a problem and that accessibility to buildings and many other barriers would miraculously disappear. Then, someone caught my head with a clipboard in passing and brought me back to the reality of real lives of most chronically sick and disabled people.  The fact that some couldn’t even go to the toilet unaided, or get dressed without a care support package in place, or could only manage 2 hrs a day maybe due to fatigue or dialysis, chemo fog etc . I’m all for positive thinking, but I’m also grounded enough to know most people’s lives are just not that simple and neither are their illnesses or disabilities.

Yet with the support of charities, NHS, GPs and JCP Work Coaches this government is intending to find meaningful employment to suit those its intended for and half the disability gap overnight… Don’t let this worry you as you will all be miraculously cured.

One thing they fail to grasp is that this utopia doesn’t exist in reality for most sick & disabled people. When I recently met with Debbie Abrahams at her Disability Roadshow, only 112 employers were ‘disability confident’ to find employment for disabled people  which will mean low paid jobs with no chance of advancement in their careers.  Any training will be short lived at the bear minimum cost to the state, approx £50 per head, and CBT will be no longer than 12 weeks which won’t suit the majority of  those with even moderate mental health issues.  Most have already been there and it didn’t work, or was unsuitable for them, leaving them more depressed and anxious than before they started. The startling thing is that this is coercion by the back door, making it ‘mandatory’ to complete the twelve weeks with the indirect threat of loss of benefit for not engaging in the process as an incentive to comply. This perceived coercion is likely to increase mental health problems, not reduce them. The ongoing DWP tyranny against chronically ill people has already increased the numbers of physically ill people now adopting additional mental health problems, as their financial security has been removed, with the relentless DWP suggestion that many claimants are bogus.

The Government must make sure that all recommendations of the WCA reports and the UN  recommendations are implemented without further delay to meet its obligations to safeguard those whom are the most fragile group of claimants and does not cause harm to their mental health . Claimants health and well being cannot be sacrificed in such a manner without due regard to process under the law.

This alone must be against the grain for any civilised society,let alone breaking the Human Rights of claimants and failings of adhering the Equality Act 2010.Yet again this government is failing in its duty to ensure  preventable harm  that could be caused to what are very fragile group of claimants or in some cases prevent fatalities amongst this group of claimants, as they disengage with GP’s and other stakeholders which can have serious consequences to their health and wellbeing. Many claimants in this group have already lost their lives due to the stress and strain of the WCA processes, which left them unable to cope where they only option left is to take their own lives. This cannot be allowed to continue!

BASE  Blog By Huw Davies

“The Work and Health Programme is the headline act here though. We’ve requested sight of an equalities impact assessment, as we’re concerned that the decision to go with a single programme may not be based on any sort of analysis of the evidence. DWP appears committed to combining a programme that works, albeit with a limited group, and a programme that has patently failed(link is external).

The Work Programme offers a 4% chance(link is external) of getting you a job if you’re an existing IB claimant; 7.7% if you’re a new ESA claimant. Work Choice is nearer to 40% for IB claimants(link is external). Overall, Work Choice is delivering close to 60% job outcomes compared to 30% for the Work Programme where 70% of those referred are sent back to the Jobcentre after 2 years.”

This is why I reject this Report,not that my opinion will count for much being a mortal citizen,they have had 6yrs to make changes to get people into work,and its been a cruel dark road for many,yet again some ideological process to make work pay and lift people out of poverty is failing at a very high human cost.


If you have 5 mins please fill in this survey

Ekkelesia also did three reports


The Green Paper ;


New plans were announced today in a Department for Work and Pensions media release and Green Paper, to help more people with long term conditions to “Reap the benefits of work and improve their health.” The plans proposed today include: a review of Statutory Sick Pay and GP fit notes to support workers back into their jobs faster, and for longer encouraging Jobcentre Plus work coaches to signpost claimants to therapy the launch of a consultation on Work Capability Assessment reform encouraging employers to work with their employees with long-term health conditions to stop them from falling out of work a wide-ranging debate about recognising the value of work as a health outcome.

National RA :

National Employee Mental Wellbeing Survey results



%d bloggers like this: