Sue Marsh writes about the DWP's refusal to send anyone on the radio to debate her on the ESA cuts.
I’ve just heard the Department for Work and Pensions has refused to send anyone to Radio 4’s You and Yours show on BBC Radio 4 tomorrow (12 noon) to defend and debate with me the changes we exposed in #esaSOS.
Despite leading barristers saying they are illegal and professors of medicine saying they are immoral and unworkable, the DWP haven’t answered a single point we raised. Again.
It’s remarkable. People are suffering – 140,000 people have been proven to have been unfairly stripped of their livelihood. We challenge them, they don’t even deny we’re right, but they sit there in their ivory towers and say, “so sue us”.
Well, DWP, we will and if you think I’ll stop at defeating you on ESA you’re wrong. I’ll make sure every last one of you is held personally accountable for the horrific assault you’re inflicting on vulnerable people in the UK who need you most.
In the next few weeks, I will release stories proving you are liars and cheats. I promise, you will not be able to hide from these. You will have no defence, no one to blame but yourselves. And yes, I’ll do it from my hospital bed, and yes, I’ll do it fed into my central line, and yes, I will win.
And think on this DWP – you’ve left me the whole show to say what I like unopposed.
This article was originally published on Sue’s blog, “Diary of a Benefit Scrounger”; follow Sue on Twitter: @suey2y.
See also:
• ESA SOS: Another day, another attack on disabled people – January 17th, 2013
64 Responses to “Comment: IDS and the DWP can run, but they can’t hide”
LB
Whilst I’ve explained why your citations are worthless
============
Well, You’ve been asking for references as to disguised employment. I provide them, and every time I provide a new link with the evidence, you deny its evidence.
So that’s why I’ve turned it round. Provide the evidence that there are 2.5 million disabled, and why there has been a 250% increase. How about some references for some research showing how these people have become disabled, and how they aren’t capable of work.
As for pension funding, they are all paid out of NI. As the money has gone to hide unemployment, that’s come off pension payouts. So the question is how much have people lost by this. The answer is 430,000 pounds for a median wage earner, 26K a year, 700 a year 40 years ago.
they confirm that the expenditure on it swells when the claimant count on it swells in 1988-1995.
That could be inflation. However, its the claimant count that rockets.
So if you say its mental illness, where’s the evidence for the break down of claimants. Wheres the evidence that there has been well over a 250% increase in metal illness preventing people from working?
You’re not putting up any evidence. Sauce for the goose, post some.
Mason Dixon, Autistic
“Well, You’ve been asking for references as to disguised employment. I
provide them, and every time I provide a new link with the evidence, you
deny its evidence.”
No, you post links to people claiming the same thing, who cite other people claiming the same thing, none of whom actually have evidence but grasp at any straw, usually figures with rhetorical rather than explanatory power and Steve Fothergill is a reoccurring feature.
Now that you’re actually asking me for specifics- you’re asking for information that has bugger all to do with the explanation I have already repeatedly given you for how the increase happened. Even suggesting that the 1988-1995 expenditure growth could be ‘inflation’ reveals you haven’t bothered ever following the topic. You completely disregard the ‘when’ as important and act as if what I said conforms to your own pre-conceived notions of what someone disagreeing with you should say.
I did not say ‘mental illness’. I said the demographics of claimants have changed and where most claims were for physical impairments they are now for mental ones. Psychosis, psychiatric diagnoses and learning difficulties- what do these have to do with mental illness in your magic fairy world? Again if you knew anything beyond what tabloid columnists told you about the subject you would have read the DWP’s own break-downs on their website.
LB
So lets try a different angle with you.
140,000 unfairly stripped of their livelyhood. Actually, put onto job seeking benefits so they haven’t been stripped of any livelyhood.
Now, how many have been fairly stripped of the livelyhood?
ade
go for them!
Mason Dixon, Autistic
The premise is incorrect. Those who are found ‘fit for work’ following an assessment(which has had the goalposts moved, with eligibility being narrower than under even the PCA system) are not put onto JSA. JSA is recommended to them but they are in a catch-22 situation: claiming JSA requires them to self-declare their lack of any impairment to work, which for a particularly vindictive DWP employee would amount to having lied previously by making an ESA claim. They would essentially be trying to claim JSA whilst not genuinely believing themselves to be capable of work.
You’ve suggested previously that you have a qualification in statistics, yet you don’t appear to understand the figure you are using or any others. The 140,000 figure is for those who were found ‘fit for work’ and then who successfully appealed. During this time they are put back in the ESA Assessment Phase which is the equivalent of a JSA payment in cash terms, however there are lots of stipulations on this that I would have posted here if not for the fact that you’ve so far shown absolutely no interest in boring details that don’t directly suit your view. Once people win an appeal, they are often called back for re-assessment almost immediately, again and again. This system is designed to wear them down and make them give up, the problem is that they have no choice.
There is nothing fair about any of this.