Work programmme charities gagged by Government

Organisations that sign up to deliver the government Work and Health programme must agree not to.attack Esther McVey or the DWP. I expect that clause to be there its standard, but why would charities  sign up to such a scheme in the  first place? Organisations that undertake government contracts cannot be seen to disagree with policy. These organisations claim to support the rights of disabled people, those rights have been adversely affected by the very same policies. Its a very clear and 'dangerous' conflict of interests, which should not be allowed.

The Government won't care they want to silence those who speak out against them, and this is job done, in a way that they hope won't be noticed. The charities should know better, although I know in reality they won't care either, most don't work with us, but apparently 'for' us. They say what they like without listening to disabled people. This  scheme raises their profile, brings in funds and it meets their definition of helping people, though I don't agree with the definition.

These charities won't be able to effectively challenge any DWP policy or action. If they provide welfare advice that is mostly rendered useless, they are no longer umpartial, they are paid by the state. They can no longer claim to be supporting our rights because they are participating in work that harms those rights. They have also allowed themselves to be gagged, they have agreed to stay silent. They can no longer play any real part in stopping this government. They have betrayed the very people they supposedly support.

When welfare is warfare

Stories are doing the rounds that DWP are not following the own regulations in dealing with PIP claims.

Several stories going around but the gist is that mandatory reconsiderations are  being sent out before claimants have decison  notices. They didn't ask for one, because the law says you can't before you have a decision notice. MR is the first part of the appeal process. It is for claimants  not DWP to decide if this step is taken.  It is in my opinion a cynical and dangerous attempt to squander claimants rights, and ensure they face an appeal wasting public funds. Instead the aim should be to improve the decision making process, to reduce the need for the appeal process to be used, and where it is, resolving disputes at the earliest opportunity, making it a quicker, cheaper and less stressful process.

This is very serious because it denies the right to defend rights, the right to challange. It is another flaw in a flawed system, the purpose of which seems to be to deny those who qualify their rightful enritlement. The aim should be to support those who need it, instead the process seems hellbent on proving that nobody does. It should be radically changed before it isn't used because blanket refusal becomes a given.

Original Source Disability News Service