BENEFIT SCROUNGING SCUMBAGS

This is what someone on disability benefits looks like, according to the Daily Mail. And they’re costing us 24 schools every day, apparently.

Look at him! The fat lazy sodding BASTARD! STEALING MY MONEY! FUCKING THIEF! THEY SHOULD BE FACKIN’ LOCKED UP! STERILISED! ‘ANGING’S TOO GOOD FOR THEM! ETC! *tweak* *froth* *spit*

The Daily Wail estimates 400,000 – a square 100,000 less than the Financial Times gave as the government’s estimate almost exactly one month ago. In the FT’s version, 2.6m recipients of disability benefits will be reclassified as fit-to-work in this parliament. This equals a “cool” 500,000 or 23 per cent of the total. (“Cool”? Bizarre choice of word there, FT.)

I’m going to turn to BendyGirl‘s excellent post to deal with more numbers. She has a better grasp of them than I:

The official Department of Work and Pensions fraud rate for Disability Living Allowance makes it very clear that only 0.5% of the total number of claims are fraudulent. That’s approximately 14,500 fraudulent claims out of an overall 2.9million.  So, less than 15,000 Disability Living Allowance awards are fraudulent and the coalition are determined to reduce the numbers claiming DLA by half a million.

Whether it’s 400,000 or 500,000 is almost irrelevant. They’re scrounging scumbags, and should be “forced” back into work. What’s 100,000 scroungers? A couple of technical colleges to add to your 24 schools per day, presumably.

Even though, by the DWP’s own admission, the number being “forced” back into work will be far greater than those that are actually fraudulent. Going by the Mail’s lesser estimate, There are still 385,500 people who are not committing benefit fraud that will be “forced back into work”. Or, in reality, reclassified to the dole, because let’s face it, companies aren’t going to give increasingly rarefied jobs to anyone less than able-bodied, fit and well people. And in a way, why shouldn’t they? The best person for the job.

Regardless of the new and welcome Equality Act 2010, there are still many ways and means to check a potential employee’s health – very easy ones at that. From the Guardian:

What the Equality Act says about health-related questions

• Are pre-employment medical questions banned? No, says lawyer Paul Gaff. “But questions must relate to the parts of the job that are intrinsic. Employers still have a duty to make reasonable adjustments, so they can ask if you require any to attend the interview.”

• How clear are the rules? Not very. “The government is not giving definitive guidance on what questions are appropriate. Some employers will be test cases, which is really not helpful. But those who are sensible will say, you know what, I don’t want a disability discrimination claim.”

• What about asking how many sick days you’ve taken? “That falls into a grey area, but an employer would have a higher risk profile if they asked.”

• Can employers ask questions about physically obvious disabilities during interviews? “The only thing they should do is ask a generic question, such as: ‘Would you foresee the need to make any reasonable adjustments to facilitate your performance of the role?’ And leave it there.”

• What if you disclose a disability after accepting the job and the employer wants to reject you? “If you reject someone at the application stage, that’s probably one of a number of rejections.” Once a job offer has been made, “you’re going to need to work pretty hard to show you’re justified”.

How so how are the government going to get all these 385,500 people back into work on the dole? The solution is Atos Healthcare. It’s a private company contracted (under a £500 million contract for the next seven years) to undertake the work capability assessments. (Bearing this in mind, why is their website covered in nice reassuring pictures of children? Are they being tested for work? Don’t think so.)

I took one, and I “passed” as unfit for work. Well, partially. Only 6% of those tested are deemed incapable of working. This test already has a 94% failure rate. And somehow the government wants to make it harder. As Melissa Viney wrote in the Guardian:

The public are led to believe they are forking out money for a nation of benefit scroungers. But the reason why such claimants are failing is that the test is now so stringent and mismanaged that seriously ill people are regularly being declared fit for work: the government has reached a desired answer simply by altering the question, and we take this foregone conclusion as proof that most claimants are undeserving of benefit.

And this is exactly what the Daily Mail article above does, and passes it off as fact. Takes a completely fictional photograph, and applies it to disabled people claiming benefits. The man is labelled a “claimant”. Not a fraudster. Not as the exception, but the type.

The reality was that I spent around six months waiting for any money at all. I supported myself with the severance package given to me by my previous employers, as a result of applying for voluntary redundancy.

Before my own taxes (I’m not stealing money from anyone, I paid my taxes every day I worked) started to trickle back, I had to jump through a series of hoops, medical tests, pokings, examinations, and appointments where I was quizzed on every aspect, physical and mental, of why I felt that I justified any financial help whatsoever. And those don’t stop. It’s an ongoing process, because no one gets signed off work by psychiatrists, GPs, or any other medical professionals for more than a few months at a time. That’s how it works, in my experience. These fraudsters would have to be medically supported by fraudulent or incompetent doctors.

In a statement to the BBC, Atos said:

Atos Healthcare and its employees are not advised of the result of the assessment and the outcome has no bearing on Atos Healthcare targets or remuneration.

But you’d better be damn sure that every single Atos employee knows about those targets, and managers can be encouraged to pressure their staff to meet them. Why have targets at all, otherwise?

It covers physical as well as mental, cognitive and intellectual abilities, ensuring that the disabling effects of mental health conditions are fully considered.

Really? My examiner professed to being a GP without much knowledge of mental illness. The examination was invasive, degrading, and ended up giving me a panic attack. Essentially, I was never really made aware of why it was taking place, and no allowances were made for the fact I find meeting appointments or dealing with strangers incredibly stressful.

The occupational health assessments are designed to assess if somebody is fit for a specific job whereas the Work Capability Assessment has been developed to assess somebody’s capability for work in general.

Work in general. What does that mean? And why is it better than testing for a specific job? How can you possibly gauge that in a 20-minute (by my experience) chat with a GP? When I took the Atos WCA (Work Capability Assessment), I was asked if I could raise my arms above my head. Presumably because if I can raise my arms above my head once, I can get a job in a factory where hundreds of people raise their arms above their head once per day, and then go home until tomorrow. (FACT: just a room full of people doing this makes school-building fairies that never sleep. Imagine what a factory could do, etc.)

Anyway, you normal hard-working grafters, you salt of the Earth. Depending on whether you believe the Daily Mail’s image, or you believe an account of an average day in the life of someone on disability benefits, I’m off to either:

A) STUFF myself with TAKEAWAYS bought with YOUR MONEY while reclining with a PACK OF FAGS on my LEATHER sofa, which YOU BOUGHT, and remotely change channels on my 42″ TV BOUGHT BY YOUR TAXES because I’m too LAZY to get off the sofa, and then neck a few PINTS down the PUB and BRAG to all my FRIENDS about how FUCKING COOL MY LIFE IS at YOUR EXPENSE. I might even order PORN from my SKY PACKAGE, because that SHIFTY look on my CORPULENT FACE suggests that I’ve got sticky tissues in the pocket of my JEANS. JEANS THAT YOU BOUGHT, YOU FUCKING STUPID SHIT.

Or …

B) Eat half an expired packet-rice left by a previous tenant, which I’m slightly allergic to, but will force myself to eat (because it’s better than going outside to the supermarket and risking another public panic attack). Then I’ll hide under my duvet sweating and obsessing about whether I’ll be able to leave my room, or make eye-contact with anyone when there’s something I need to do. Then I might piss in a bottle because I’m too scared to leave my room to go to the bathroom. And because every fibre of my being believes I’m a mentally paralysed worthless failure who’ll never be able to get another job, I probably won’t sleep tonight. So I’ll sit awake in a stinking dressing gown, refreshing Facebook and watching my successful friends from the past having relationships and achieving great things in the real world; terrified that at any second, an uncaring government will force me into a job I don’t have a hope of properly understanding – until I fuck up, they fire me, and I’ll have to apply for benefits again. Or perhaps decide upon a more terminal solution.

The second option isn’t very nice. We don’t want to think of people like that. It’s much easier to reduce people on benefits into a homogenised and repulsive hate figure, like the Daily Mail does with its picture.

Thanks to @SarahHarries for bringing this picture to my attention