The work capability assessment should be declared “unfit” to work.

[999tigger 10]

Regardless, you have been insulting towards two forum members, it is uncalled for. If you can't be nice perhaps you should log off for a bit, calm down and reassess your conduct.

 

Lol you are hilarious. The poster concerned was deliberately trolling people, but you are too lazy to read the thread or make an effort to understand what its about. Thanks for being my conscience but I can think of a lot more worthwhile people to take advice from.

[runningman1 12]

Lol you are hilarious. The poster concerned was deliberately trolling people, but you are too lazy to read the thread or make an effort to understand what its about. Thanks for being my conscience but I can think of a lot more worthwhile people to take advice from.

 

You are also deliberately trolling people, calling me runningperson? How do you know I am not worthwhile? Please try to be nicer.

[999tigger 10]

You are also deliberately trolling people, calling me runningperson? How do you know I am not worthwhile? Please try to be nicer.

 

Your the one with the issues that you started posting to me wanting to give advice. I have no interest in talking to you whatsoever. I was simply responding to you.

 

Read the thread and you can see why I refrerred to the poster as I did, because of their behaviour.

 

Do I find you worthwhile? Well considering in a short space of time you have managed to be consistently incorrect. then it doesnt inspire confidence. You shouldnt take things so personally, its just a forum, its not like we will ever have to meet, which we can both be thankful for.

[onewheeldave 22]

Sorry what? I called disabled people disabled. Is that not what I am supposed to refer to them any more?

 

Surely the time has arrived that we can put the Disableds to work? Obviously the proper bad ones can't work, but most could. It would mean they weren't so resented by a large portion of society and their self esteem would increase loads.

 

You called them 'the Disableds'. I suspect you genuinely don't find it offensive.

 

You also said 'put them to work'. Most disabled people not working could work very well- if given access to work that is suitable for them and appropriate 'reasonable adjustments' are decided and agreed upon by both employer and employee. No human being should be 'put to work', as it clearly suggests coercion.

 

The 'large portion of society' that you say resents them, is possibly not quite so large as you think, as society as a whole is not necessarily reflected proportionally by the particular segments of society you encounter in your daily life.

 

Either way, 'putting 'disableds' to work' in order to placate a section of society, who, by virtue of their resentment of said 'disableds' are, by definition, prejudiced bigots, is hardly the best way forward, is it?

[runningman1 12]

You called them 'the Disableds'. I suspect you genuinely don't find it offensive.

 

You also said 'put them to work'. Most disabled people not working could work very well- if given access to work that is suitable for them and appropriate 'reasonable adjustments' are decided and agreed upon by both employer and employee. No human being should be 'put to work', as it clearly suggests coercion.

 

The 'large portion of society' that you say resents them, is possibly not quite so large as you think, as society as a whole is not necessarily reflected proportionally by the particular segments of society you encounter in your daily life.

 

Either way, 'putting 'disableds' to work' in order to placate a section of society, who, by virtue of their resentment of said 'disableds' are, by definition, prejudiced bigots, is hardly the best way forward, is it?

 

Ahh didn't mean to put an s on the end of disabled, problems with touch typing on a phone, s is next to d.

 

These people, whom I do not number myself amongst, are only bigots by the definition of the word if you do not know what the word bigot means. For your information, it does not mean "nasty person".

 

I am passionate about getting disabled people to work through work placements.

[999tigger 10]

 

Basically some people cannot work. Many of them are in contact with various mental health professionals/occupational therapists etc, with reports by medical professionals who have genuine long term knowledge of said patients and their requirements/issues.

 

Those reports should be soley sufficient to establish the ability or otherwise, of the patients, to work.

.

 

Back to the issue.

 

1. The government has a right to decide who gets benefit and who does not.

2. Its not right to just use GPs as thats a reason why so many were signed off in the first place and partly to massage the figures.

3. Any test should be fair and they should at least consider any evidence supplied by outside professionals.

4. One of the many weaknesses in the current test has been an unwillingness to consider outside supporting evidence plus a lack of expertise in assessors with no experience of mental health issues. They would need to sort that out.

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

Perhaps you shouldn't be so judgemental woods. I work with disabled kids, taking them to my gym and introducing them to boxing. Disabled people are disabled, it is not disrespectful to call them so.

 

I'm not judging you old chap. I merely pointed out the way you worded your post, as it comes across as though people with disabilities should be rounded up and carted off to the salt mines, (if they're not reight bad)

 

As a service manager I oversee the day to day management of several services for people with learning/physical/disabilities, as well as people on the Autism spectrum.

 

I applaud you on the work you do. Lets ENABLE people with disabilities to live a full and varied life!

Edited November 21, 2015 by GLASGOWOODS

[onewheeldave 22]

Ahh didn't mean to put an s on the end of disabled, problems with touch typing on a phone, s is next to d.

Yes- and that mistake, as you can see, was the source of some major understanding that fueled several aggressive posts. I'm sure now you can see why some posters kicked off, and, they can see it was an honest mistake on your part, acknowledged and explained.

 

 

These people, whom I do not number myself amongst, are only bigots by the definition of the word if you do not know what the word bigot means. For your information, it does not mean "nasty person".

No- people are bigots if they exhibit bigoted thinking and behaviour. By definition, anyone who 'resents disabled people' is clearly intolerant and therefore bigoted.

 

 

 

 

I am passionate about getting disabled people to work through work placements.

You'd be surprised how many people use that exact phrase I hope if you ever want to convey it in a job/course app, you don't put that word-for-word, but, instead, explain how you help disabled people into work, and what specifically you offer in that process to distinguish you from the other hundred applicants who do just put that stock, stale, easy, insincere sounding and utterly empty, turn of phrase. Not having a go at you, just a bit of honest advice.

 

I'd think also about "getting disabled people to work", as it suggests they are somewhat incapable. Most disabled people would be highly capable of taking up work, if there was suitable work available, and, our society hadn't inadvertently evolved into a place where the disabled are routinely prejudiced against when it comes to employment and education.

 

Wouldn't you feel better 'supporting' disabled people in making the decisions and obtaining the resources necessary for them to access employment, rather than 'getting them to work'?

[Lobos 10]

I was listening about this on radio 4 the other day,there was a guy who had something to do with these tests,he was talking about people who can't work because of incontinence,he was saying there is four levels of incontinence ranging from a bit to complete incontinence, apparently if you are just a bit leaky and you can take a change of clothes to work you have to work. what employer is going to put up with someone disappearing to change their clothes every so often,if you are unable to get to the toilet without help and your working environment can not be adapted to your needs then you maybe exempt from work

[davyboy 17]

Some people are just not up to working in the 21st century working environment. I seriously don't believe this is an issue nowadays. People are entitled to a basic standard of living without having to work. Those that work do so because they feel fulfilled doing it and because it allows them to afford a better standard of living.

 

It's a pity your Mum or Dad didn't read you the story of the little red hen.

[psynuk 10]

The moral of this story is that those who say no to contribution to a product do not deserve to enjoy the product: "if any would not work, neither should he eat.

 

It's not really comparable tho is it.

As the parable is set in a world that doesn't have the legal constraints and ownership that prevent someone who doesn't want to work for money to work for simple survival.

Furthermore were not prepared as a society to tolerate the outcomes that lack of money creates, in fact we positively work to ensure that money must be used in practically all situations relating to survival.

Which leads to the perverse balance of wealth we have. Which unfortunately makes El Nino's suggestion sound unfair and unthinkable when really it's not and should actually be the desired and strived for state of affairs.

[dangerousedd 10]

I'm sure a lot of people with disabilities could work if given the right support but who's going to employ somebody with a severe disability where they need a full time PA when they can employ an able bodied person unless the government gives them big incentive payments to do so?

 

even then some may not be able to work due to the amount of pain they have and the medical care they may need daily.