#werspartacus #blacktriangle1 #dla #workfare
Chris Grayling is the Minister for Disability Denial. Where Duncan Smith will spit in your eye and lie straight to your face, Maria Miller is so far above her pay-grade that even she doesn’t know what she’s saying (lying about meeting charities she’d never met was not the best move), and Father Ted lies politely and then promises so many reviews that were Paul Raymond still alive he’d be hired to run them.
Chris Grayling however is the sociopath within the Ministry supposedly charged with representing the interests of some of the most vulnerable in our society.
Up until entering parliament he worked at Burson-Marsteller whose methodology appears to be:
“Evidence-Based Communications. Inform. Monitor. Measure. Succeed.”
It would appear from the ‘evidence-based communications’ below that this was not an approach with which the Grayling agrees.
Talking on Channel 4 News he was asked about the voluntary nature of one of the ‘workfare’ schemes being rolled out.
“Kathy Newman: ..this letter makes it absolutely clear that if you fail to start you could get your benefit stopped. Do you accept that now?
Grayling: The rules for this scheme are absolutely clear that you have a week to opt out.”
Despite the whirring of industrial scale shredders in the basement of Minilove, manned by hordes of 18-year olds under threat of sanction, and the best minds of CCHQ drafted in on secondment to amend, delete or otherwise unlawfully change public files to agree with the minister’s statements ‘after the fact’ those of us who actually have a clue what we’re doing were soon all over this blatant attempt to not only lie initially and then to lie again repeatedly, but to exhibit prima facie evidence that you knew you were lying. Instead of apologising you acted in a Nixon-esque manner whilst hiding behind the never-ceasing smokescreen of leaked stories of benefits cheats and the vile outpourings of columnists in newspapers unfit to wipe one’s arse with; the Sun’s campaign meriting special mention, apparently they’d run out of dead teenagers and thought that invalids were almost as good, but when Murdoch says he wants to run an ethical organisation one can hardly be surprised that he uses a different dictionary.
Here is the relevant documentation (simplified):
WORK EXPERIENCE AND SANCTIONS
From 5.4.11 JSA may not be payable or it may be payable at a reduced rate to claimants who are entitled to JSA and have
1. lost a place on a Work Experience through misconduct (see DMG 34734 -34735)2 or
2. subject to the good cause provisions detailed in paragraph 8 of this guidance given up or failed to attend a place on a Work Experience without good cause (see DMG 34736 -34747)3 or
3. after being notified by an Emp O of a place on a Work Experience, without good cause (see DMG 34751 – 34752)
3.1 refused or failed to apply for it or
3.2 refused to accept it when offered or
4. neglected to avail themselves of a reasonable opportunity of a place on a Work Experience (see DMG 34757 -34758)5.
8 A claimant is regarded as having good cause for failing to attend or giving up Work Experience providing they
1. attend the first day of Work Experience and
2. give up not later than one week after the date on which they begin Work Experience and
3. do not lose the Work Experience place due to misconduct.
Here’s a transcript of another appearance by the Grayling.
The only scheme that we have at the moment that involves mandatory activity is a short term scheme operated by Job Centre Plus called Mandatory Work Activity
That’s only part of the truth though. the protests, strangely missing from the mainstream media who will die to get a story from Syria but will let the unemployed and disabled in the UK rot under a barrage of misinformation from the UK government, the protests were in an attempt to either stop or change the WRB before it became law. The WRB contains these categories of workfare:
I’m really beginning to feel rather nauseous now so I’ll just bring in one of my heroes in this affair, and it’s to Labour’s extreme discredit that there are so few, Sheila Gilmore. During a debate on the Work capability Assessment or as it should more accurately be called, the Terrify Them or Make Them Wait Until they Die Procedure brought to you in Association with UNUM Healthcare.
A brief extract that just gives a small illustration of the behaviour of DWP and other government minsters throughout the whole parody of democratic engagement:
I will move on to the recommendations of the work carried out by the charities. I commissioned that myself. I asked the charities to come back with recommended changes to the descriptors. I very much wanted, and do want, to get this right. The problem is straightforward: they did not actually do what they were asked to do. They were asked to make recommendations about further ways to improve the descriptors that would allow us further to ensure that the assessment process for people with mental health challenges was accurate, effective and reflected their needs and potential. That is not what happened.
The charities came back with a recommended system that would have involved tearing up the whole work capability assessment for mental, fluctuating and physical conditions and starting again from scratch, redoing all our computer systems and all the training for every member of staff in the entire network. That was not just a tweak; it was a comprehensive change to the whole
thing, based on no actual evidence. The charities did not come forward with tangible evidence. They simply said, “We think it would work better this way.” They may or may not be right, but that is quite a big step to take just on the basis of a set of recommendations from a group of charities that had been proved wrong in the internal review process.
The recommendations from the charities were put to an independent scrutiny panel that had a large number of people with considerable expertise, so will the Minister agree that it is not true to say that they were simply the recommendations of a group of charities?
(Here they are referring to this document ‘Responsible Reform’ aka The Spartacus Report)
That is the case, but what we lack and what we intend now to get is hard evidence to determine whether this is right. Given that the charities were wrong the first time round, I am very reluctant to tear up the whole thing and redo all the computer systems—a vast amount of change; probably a two or three-year project—only to discover that that does not make a difference.
Wonderful work, belittle something that almost cost the authors their lives, literally (and I mean literally it put them in intensive care), accept a correction and then immediately dismiss it again. I would also point out the inconsistency of turning down a document that was agreed by virtually everyone to be an excellent investigation into the whole area around reform on the grounds that he is very reluctant to tear up a system that has a 40% appeals rate of which up to 70% are successful. Maybe if DWP had done the work properly in the first place instead of trying to rush it through they wouldn’t be in the situation they are now.
And, by the way, you may not have a choice over whether or not you get to spend 2 or 3 years rebuilding it the whole WRB breaches so many national, EU and international laws , directives, treaties, conventions there’s hardly a clause in the whole mess that can’t be challenged.
Finally, just in case The Grayling had forgotten about the Corporate Manslaughter question:
The list to so far…..
1. Richard Sanderson
2. Paul Reekie
3. Paul Willcoxson
4. Leanne Chambers
5. & 6. Christelle Pardo and Kayjah Pardo
7. Elaine Christian
8. George – From Chesterfield
9. David Groves
10. & 11. Mark and Helen Mullins
12. Man From Uncle
13. Vicky Harrison
14. Tuvalu Widow
15. Linda Knott
16. Jack Shemtob
17. Appeal Too Late To Save Sister
18. Stephen Hill
19. Sandra Moon
HOW MANY MORE ?
* The above alleged welfare reform deaths do not take into account the admission by Department of Work & Pensions Minister, Mr Chris Grayling of a further 31 deaths ….