People on Carers Allowance to be studied more closely.

[techguyone]

For the benefit of mods etc, most everyone here, myself included that have expressed qualms are in fact carers.

Whilst asking for the thread to be closed, we are not doing it for the sake of censorship or to stifle free debate, but to stop what would appear at best to be scaremongering, and at worst maliciousness from the OP.

A number of us have all expressed alarm and personal upset, I can say from my own pov that when I read the title, my heart sank and I was anxious.

While you are free to ask, I see no reason to close this. Please also refer to my previous post.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Taf

24 years a Carer, and I only once had a sit-down with the DSS.

And they wanted me off Carers Allowance and into full time employment.

So I asked when the Respite Care would be made available, plus full-time paid carer to replace me.

Interview ended.

yep they tend to go away then

Then ban me because this is ridiculous in a current affairs section of a forum a thread is started with no facts and no substantiating evidence has already caused concern to one member and likely others and the OP whose past is anything but trustworthy seems to get a free pass to alarm. This is not about freedom of speech or freedom to debate a topic as anyone wanting to discuss carer's affairs can do so on any disability forum this is alarmist scaremongering affecting a vulnerable and underappreciated group in society.

Clearly there is more going on here i don't know if Richard is friends with a mod or what but he seems to get more leeway then a lot have on here over the years.

[dilli-theclaw]

I find it amazing how things change. Initially I was told by the job centre to apply for disability benefits as I'd have 'no chance' in ever getting a job.

Natalie and I would be financially better off if she gave up work and looked after me but I still feel like I'd be asking too much of her so it's not happened yet, at least she has job security where she is and what with whatever changes /may/ happen in my circumstances I don't want us to be worse off.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by techguyone

For the benefit of mods etc, most everyone here, myself included that have expressed qualms are in fact carers.

Whilst asking for the thread to be closed, we are not doing it for the sake of censorship or to stifle free debate, but to stop what would appear at best to be scaremongering, and at worst maliciousness from the OP.

A number of us have all expressed alarm and personal upset, I can say from my own pov that when I read the title, my heart sank and I was anxious.

It's not relevant that you are a carer; why would a 'non-carer' have views any less valuable? And frankly if 'scaremongering' frightens you, the internet is probably not the best place for you.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Then ban me because this is ridiculous in a current affairs section of a forum a thread is started with no facts and no substantiating evidence has already caused concern to one member and likely others and the OP whose past is anything but trustworthy seems to get a free pass to alarm. This is not about freedom of speech or freedom to debate a topic as anyone wanting to discuss carer's affairs can do so on any disability forum this is alarmist scaremongering affecting a vulnerable and underappreciated group in society.

Clearly there is more going on here i don't know if Richard is friends with a mod or what but he seems to get more leeway then a lot have on here over the years.

If you disagree, why not just say so and leave it at that? Surely you would not want members to feel they are constrained by your disapproval. You take these discussions very personally and whilst you may have good grounds for doing so (in your view), it is unfair to attempt to visit a limitation upon others.

Think about it; treading on eggshells ruins debate (notwithstanding that there are limits of course). If you disagree with Richard, why not help him to see things differently but you should expect him to return the favour.

Alternatively, take Paul's advice as I will do after this post and move on.

Originally Posted by Kursk

It's not relevant that you are a carer; why would a 'non-carer' have views any less valuable? And frankly if 'scaremongering' frightens you, the internet is probably not the best place for you.



If you disagree, why not just say so and leave it at that? Surely you would not want members to feel they are constrained by your disapproval. You take these discussions very personally and whilst you may have good grounds for doing so (in your view), it is unfair to attempt to visit a limitation upon others.

Think about it; treading on eggshells ruins debate (notwithstanding that there are limits of course). If you disagree with Richard, why not help him to see things differently but you should expect him to return the favour.

Alternatively, take Paul's advice as I will do after this post and move on.

It's not a case of disagreeing ,it's a case of Richard making stuff up to deliberately alarm and worry people .There is no discussion to be had on this subject simply because people on carers allowance are not being studied more closely

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by martyh

It's not a case of disagreeing ,it's a case of Richard making stuff up to deliberately alarm and worry people .There is no discussion to be had on this subject simply because people on carers allowance are not being studied more closely

Then Paul's advice would seem to be the best idea. Besides, there are more interesting things to be discussed

[RichardCoulter]

Current status of the Freedom of Information Act request:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...atory_research

Some further reading about this after a quick Google search:

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/10155/

https://thepoorsideoflife.wordpress....ities-for-dwp/

http://unemploymentmovement.com/foru...-research.html

https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/20...ns-laboratory/

I'll post any further news as and when I receive it.

If anybody is called into one of these meetings, a legal advocate can be provided via a Manchester based charity (just PM me) who are very, very concerned about these meetings, because they believe that they are unethical, may breach a person's human rights and cause particular problems for those with a mental health condition.

Nothing about this "study" seems ethical in their legal opinion.

"A room with a 2 way mirror and capacity for 12 people studying body language and facial expressions is wrong in so many ways, DWP are giving the wrong impression that claimants are potential criminals with this latest research in my view and this is going to be used to sieve claimants out for potential investigation".

"In my opinion they are going to use this as a sieve so rather than investigate a 100 they may investigate a few that display the unreliable signs of possible lying. Body language experts cannot be used in UK courts as reliable evidence source so why here!"

Originally Posted by martyh

It's not a case of disagreeing ,it's a case of Richard making stuff up to deliberately alarm and worry people.

To be clear, this is just your opinion.

While we allow a certain amount of leeway for people to post opposing opinions, some members are just getting hysterical and crossing the line (still).

Two members have already had 1 day suspensions, dont be the third.

Originally Posted by martyh

There is no discussion to be had on this subject

Move on then.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Current status of the Freedom of Information Act request:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...atory_research

Some further reading about this after a quick Google search:

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/10155/

https://thepoorsideoflife.wordpress....ities-for-dwp/

http://unemploymentmovement.com/foru...-research.html

https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/20...ns-laboratory/

I'll post any further news as and when I receive it.

If anybody is called into one of these meetings, a legal advocate can be provided via a Manchester based charity (just PM me) who are very, very concerned about these meetings, because they believe that they are unethical, may breach a person's human rights and cause particular problems for those with a mental health condition.

Nothing about this "study" seems ethical in their legal opinion.

"A room with a 2 way mirror and capacity for 12 people studying body language and facial expressions is wrong in so many ways, DWP are giving the wrong impression that claimants are potential criminals with this latest research in my view and this is going to be used to sieve claimants out for potential investigation".

"In my opinion they are going to use this as a sieve so rather than investigate a 100 they may investigate a few that display the unreliable signs of possible lying. Body language experts cannot be used in UK courts as reliable evidence source so why here!"

Apologies, I didn't attribute the last two statements to the person who made them:

Michelle Cardno (LLB hons).

[Anypermitedroute]

as confirmed by DWP not A new concept

The purpose is to allow customers to see, and try, an early version of a new service and give feedback on it. This feedback is then used to inform the future design so that any problems identified by customers can be resolved before any new service actually launches.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...14%20Reply.pdf

Scaremongering at its finest

[RichardCoulter]

Not scaremongering at all.

If you are happy with this response from the DWP after all this time that's fine, but I prefer to take notice of legally trained experts.

I will, however, pass this onto them for consideration.

As it stands, the advice remains unchanged ie if you are called or invited to one of these meetings; seek advice.

The new PM has said that no further benefit cuts beyond those already planned are to be made during the life of the current Parliament.

Just as I was thinking that this is was very small crumb of comfort for those who rely on this support to survive, I am now informed that those who score low points during the DLA to PIP conversion are now losing entitlement to ESA!

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...0#post35862640

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

if you are called into one of these meetings; seek advice.

Richard ,people are not "called into one these meetings" they are voluntary ,people are invited ...so yes ,scaremongering ....again

[RichardCoulter]

Whether called, invited or whatever terminology is used, the advice is to seek help.