Tag: channel 4

Welfare State: Benefit Britain 1949

jacksdavieLeave a comment

Below is my thoughts on Channel 4’s ‘Benefits Britain’ programme, aired 12/08/13 at 9 pm. If you live in the UK, I am sure you can watch it online. Be warned, this post contains spoilers! You don’t have to have seen the programme to be able to debate the issues raised… this is currently a ‘hot potato’ about which nearly everyone has an opinion. Would love to know what happens in other countries too, when people are unable to work, for whatever reason.

I have to admit, I was rather skeptical whether Channel 4’s latest programme about the problems with the Welfare State would prove anything. This time, they went back to 1949’s rules about who should, and should not, get benefits. For television’s sake, redecorated a couple of buildings to look similar to 1949’s equivalent of Jobcentre Plus, and gave the 1949 rule-book to a couple of welfare assessors with 60 years experience between them. It was interesting how much tougher the rules were. If you had paid into the system, you got the equivalent money you would have got in 1949, which meant initially that Melvyn and Karen got money, and young Craig only got emergency money of about 7 pounds for a week.

It was interesting to see how much the assessors were allowed to meddle in people’s lives, but it did mean Melvyn got help when he was unable to cope. His brother and sister were too elderly to help, and none of the neighbours said they had any time to help him. This, I think was one of the saddest parts of the programme. If this was genuinely happening in 2013, then he could have been struggling on his own, in debt, with no-one to help. This has actually happened, where people have eventually died of loneliness and starvation because they have been unable to cope and no one has noticed. Back to Melvyn later. (I’ve been calling him ‘Norman’ in my tweets!! D’oh!)

What of Karen? Overweight, with diabetes, heart problems, arthritis, and the rest. She did not welcome the benefit assessor “‘spying'” on her, or the intrusion into her life, but it did transpire that her son did almost EVERYTHING for her. What kind of life does he have? He’s an adult with his own life to live. This kind of thing makes me very uncomfortable, even more so where younger, teenage or child carers are involved. Twitter was not kind to Karen in general, especially when her attitude was on show, and the swearing started. The medical was interesting too, as it asked her to do practical tasks which actually have a bearing on real life! Invisible disabilities were not recognised in 1949, as I expected. She was judged to be capable of ‘light’ part-time work. I’m sorry, but even I do more than Karen round the house and that’s even though I have carers to do the really difficult things. It’s wrong to compare disabilities, but I live with chronic pain, like she does. There is nothing for it but to get on with it. I was hoping the workshop type environment would help her, but she refused to do anything, instead breaking down in tears. I am glad the public have seen how being contant agony can wear someone down, as it is something which can have a profound impact on your quality of life. However, this will be lost on people because they were too busy judging her weight, and saying all she did was sit on her bottom. The last bit was true. It is very difficult to lose weight when you have mobility problems to begin with, for sure, but diabetes and so on does not have to be a disability. I know people with severe diabetes who work or have worked all their lives. I think part time work would help her self-esteem and her confidence, and give her something to focus on besides the pain.  It is true that if she were judged capable of doing some work in 2013 she would not be on full benefit, as disability activists have rightly pointed out. Pain does play absolute havoc with your ability to concentrate and all the rest of it. Karen in a vicious cycle by the looks of it, similar to myself. You are in pain and unhappy so you eat, you are unable to burn it off, so you put on more weight, then you are in more pain, so you are more unhappy and you eat more… you get the idea. She needs specialist intervention to help her manage it all and lose weight, but it’s easy to judge when you only see edited snippets of someone’s life on a television programme. However, her attitude really did not help her, and won’t help her in 2013 either.

My friend Sue Marsh (@suey2y) thinks the producer specified which kind of people s/he wanted for the programme in order to stick to conventional stereotypes. It is true that Karen’s character at least was a stereotype; but she has gone further than this and said “Showing someone bedridden told they must attend WRA (work related activity) wld have been explosive”. This may be true, but someone laid in a bed with an invisible disability would be open to the same accusations that Karen was, of faking or exaggerating the extent of the disability. Also, if Twitter did go crazy, the press would swoop, and after the 5 minutes of interest in their story the person would be dropped for no longer being interesting.  In my opinion, it is the luck of the draw who reads the medical form which describes how your disability impacts your life – I got someone who understood, and I also had lots of pages of close handwriting explaining everything. Someone also said on Twitter that each person was a stereotype: an older person forced to go into a home; a wheelchair user, and a ‘malingerer’ with invisible disabilities.

The final participant, Craig, , who has spina bifida and uses a wheelchair, was completely lovely. Initially he only got emergency help of £7 something as he has never worked. Not because he didn’t want to work. He was completely capable, but had just never been given a chance. However, he was given a training allowance similar to his benefits now, a medical, which rightly judged sedentary work to be best, and a day’s work experience in a call centre. He did brilliantly. More of that later.

The programme raised at least three interesting issues:

1. Disability quotas, introduced after the war and abolished in the 90’s once the Disability Discrimination Act came into force in 1995 forced employers to take on a certain percentage of disabled workers. If they refused, they were punished accordingly. Equally, the numbers of disabled people of working age in work was much higher, about 94 per cent compared with just over 40 per cent today. It was heartbreaking to see the likes of Craig, lovely, with a great attitude, who desperately wanted to work, unable to get even work experience in 2013. He had never worked, so had no work experience, so could not get a job, a vicious cycle he could not get out of however hard he tried. However, the 1945 system gave him more results – work experience, and a job offer, which he gladly accepted. Should ‘disability quotas’ be reintroduced into the workplace?

2. The issue I discussed in my previous post, that one system of assessment does not fit all. There was no “‘mass production'”  but instead, a completely individual, ability based approach was put in place instead. Of course, they were dealing with much smaller numbers in 1945, and mostly war-wounded or industrial industries, which is completely different to someone with multiple impairments today where it is hard to say what work is suitable if any. Of course, I would not have survived birth in any age before now, nor would most of the babies born with multiple impairments who will never be able to work. They simply would not have survived. There are debates to be had about how much intervention is too much, and what constitutes quality of life. However, that is a debate itself and for another time.

3. As was mentioned in the programme, some of the impairments which Karen had existed, but were simply not recognised. The female assessor asked at the end of the programme whether it was right that 2013’s sickness and disability recognise a wider range of impairments. People are living longer, and therefore develop more complex health needs, and the state cannot afford to keep giving out. However, where do you draw the line? I bet if you asked people on the street that each person would give a different answer. Twitter was vocal, and almost unequivocal – Karen was ‘fat’, ‘lazy’ and ‘should’ get a job. That’s putting it mildly. To give you an example, @CavanaghJess said: “Being overweight and diabetic is not disabled love. GET A JOB!!” As was pointed out on twitter, if she was ineligible for benefits they would have been taken off her, or not given in the first place, but her situation does raise difficult questions. We ignore them at our peril.

Someone on twitter did question whether Karen could work in a call centre, but she could work in an office if she had voice activated software that would answer the phone for her, and she could speak to the computer what she wanted to say and software would type. She might be eligible because of her chronic pain and arthritis, however, Access to Work, the Government Grant scheme which pays for help an equipment disabled people need in order to work no longer provides this, so it would depend on whether an employer was prepared to pay the costs. If a small business owner was faced with a choice between someone healthy, with a compliant, friendly attitude, who was prepared to work hard, or someone who needed adjustments made and potentially expensive equipment bought for them, there is no way someone like Karen would have a chance of employment.

At the end of the programme, the three guinea pigs, sorry, participants all met up and were asked by one of the assessors who they would give the benefits / allowance to if only one of them could have it. Melvyn, the pensioner said Craig was more deserving than he, despite his tough experiences in the programme. However, Craig refused. Karen then kicked off and said she had more wrong with her than Craig and therefore deserved it more. Karen and Craig both had different attitudes to their disabilities, and it really showed.

The two assessors both had questions at the end of the programme. One, questioning that there’s something really wrong with a system if it cannot provide for the most vulnerable (hear hear!!) and the other assessor questioning whether the range of conditions considered for help was too large, and questioning whether the system should keep giving handouts. Would love to know what you think!

There was a lovely moment at the end of the programme where the ‘assessors’ gave Melvyn back the watch he had pawned in order to survive (his grandfather’s) but many others have to do the same, with no one to buy it back for them.

Would love to know what you all thought of the programme, or indeed if you have any opinions on, or answers to any of the questions raised in this post 🙂 Until Friday…

 

Welfare State: The terrified get more terrified as PIP looms large

jacksdavie5 Comments

This post is in response to last night’s Dispatches programme on Channel 4. However, you should be able to follow this post even if you haven’ t seen it. It is also in response to the ‘daily post’ as it is the antithesis of my ‘happy ever after’. Read on to find out what my happy ever after actually is!

Disability Living Allowance (DLA) currently costs the UK economy 12 biliion and is paid to 2 million adults. The government wants to save two billion pounds by taking half a million people off the benefit. ‘Dave’ says anyone who has had to fill in the forms knows they need changing. He’s only half right. Anyone with a dependant adult who can do nothing or almost nothing for themselves is relieved that they can simply tick a few boxes, instead of revisiting the hell of the current form making them list everything the person could not do and why, causing emotional harm to the person who fills in the form. For anyone else whose severity of disability falls in between two check boxes or fears they are unlikely to qualify, their fears are overwhelming and varied. It is all of this which has given rise to the documentary.

Esther McVey, the current Minster for Disabled people, says DLA did not take account people whose disabilites weren’t physical. However, I have read a blog by a blind person who gets money towards aids and mobility now who fears they will get nothing from PIP,  read a news article about a woman with profound and multiple learning difficulties who was assessed as fit for work, and read a carers opinion that while the understanding of mental health problems was limited on the DLA form, on the current work capability assessment forms it is even worse. Who is to say the PIP form will be any different? Also a major difference between the two benefits is that DLA focused on ‘self-care’ where appropriate wheras PIP focuses largely on people being ‘cared for’ therefore ruling out hundreds of people. I guess this is the governments aim, but it puts understanding of how disability affects people back by 20 or 30 years. Esther Mcvey the minister for disabled people argues we need a benefit which is “fair, clear and sustainable”. Few would argue with that. However, the Goverments arbritary restrictions on how far a person can walk being the condition for the mobility part of the benefit causes problems for thousands of people who can walk it but it would take them a long time, cause them to be excessively tired, or be in excruiating pain, or a combination of all three for some, including me. Add in the thorny issue of public transport which also affects thousands and you have problems galore, as adepitan explained in the documentary.

Paralympians explain it got them to the paralympics but also they have the same difficulties as other disabiled people. They are neither superhuman nor more able, argues Natasha Baker. Likewise Sophie Christiansen worries she will lose her car, and asks “what does 200 metres tell anyone?”

The DWP’s statement says that the 200 metres has to be completed in a timely, safe, and reliable way. In my opinion this may well be the saving grace for many like Christansen and Baker. However, this caveat was only re-introduced thanks to a successful campaign by disability activists after the government tried to remove it.

Re-assessment is another issue. People were previosly on benefit for life if their condiction wouldn’t improve but now will be tested regularly.  Lawrence clarke argues that he is asking for the support he needs to take control of his life and how is reassessing him saving money.

Esther Mcvey says 50 percent of people don’t have medical evidence to back their claim, however if goverment wanted evidence they’ed only have to ask to see the form I submitted when applying for income benefit or ask to see my MASSIVE medical notes.

However, is this type of documentary helpful in raising awareness of the issues both to disabled people themselves, and the general public, or is it simply scaremongering, ramping up people’s anxiety unnecessarily before they’ve even seen the final form?

There are more concrete worries as well because the company being paid almost £400 m to assess people has a “controversial track record”. I have to say, that is some understatement.  ATOS are the French IT company who asses people’s eligibility for income replacement benefit called Employment and Support Allowance if someone is unable to work. However, ‘widespread protests’ by disabled people and a cost of appeals against desicions of  £50M a year; 40 percent appeal and 40 of those desicions are overturned. None of this is likely to fill disabled people with confidence. Even the ‘Public Accounts Commitee’ have roundly criticised both ATOS and the DWP.  ATOS however deny everything and say less than half a percent of appeals are now due to mistakes in their reports. Esther McVey disagrees too saying ATOS keep within the government’s “strict rules” and disabled people are entitled to give their opinions on the process of assessment. Sorry… but is the disability minister even listening?

There are further questions over whether ATOS are fully prepared and qualified to carry out the new assessments. Many, apparently, will be undertaken by physios. Sorry,  but a physio does not have the medical training to understand the problems my surgery caused and continues to cause, or the way one thing impacts on another.

A former marine casts doubt over the thoroughness of the assessment process and says the nurse was shocked at the sight of his prosthetic. It doesn’t bode well! He did however win his appeal.

Barroness Tanni Grey-Tompson says changing DLA itself was preferable, but the goverment wanted sonething that didn’t sound so big and expensive! People are either superheroes or scroungers, regardless of fraud figures, she says. I have to say I agree with her! By enlarge, the government have the mainstream media on their side in helping to perpetuate these myths in my opinion. Barroness Grey-Thompson says she “doesn’t want to see disabled people ghettoised and locked away” as all progress made by disabled people will be lost.

“DLA has allowed disabled people to live independently in a society that’s not really built for them” says Adepitan. For me this is the crux of the issue, and in my opinion something you only fully understand once you are in that situation yourself. Only time will tell if some of the worst fears are realised.

Today’s daily prompt asked me if I am living my “happy ever after” and if not, what would need to change for this to happen. In an ideal world I’d be married to mr right,  be able to cope with a least one bairn and potentially be working! oh and be living in a supportive, understanding society!!

Realistically, I’d settle for the cuts being more widely spread, and for the current reforms of both DLA and the NHS to be revoked. Instead, DLA would be reformed from within with a different, capable contractor at the helm. As for the NHS, current attempts to privatise it would cease and money would be saved by the implementation of effective, preventitive measures,  and more front line staff would be employed not less, all saving the government pots of money in the long-run. The end.

BBC News – Paralympics 2012: Is it OK to call the athletes brave?

jacksdavie1 Comment

BBC News – Paralympics 2012: Is it OK to call the athletes brave?.

Was the BBC brave, or stupid, to cover this?

What a minefield. The only people who care about this are people who won’t like whatever language you chose to use. Most disabled people, as far as I’m aware are either confused by the debate on language, or non-plussed by it. If you asked a focus group of disabled people of varying ages and disabilities which words and phrases they least liked, I bet every single person would have different answers.

 

While we’re on the subject, I’ve heard various bodies on channel 4 use every one of the phrases they were apparently supposed to avoid. I’ve also heard Ade Adepetan go out of his way to ask what someone “suffers from” and he’s a disabled person himself! That’s part of why this is such a minefield. I notice also that it’s Damon Rose of Ouch who has written the article. One wonders why he bothered, now ‘Ouch’ is reduced to a miniscule presence on the BBC news team. Once upon a time, this article would have been the subject of one of his editorials and  would have been discussed with relish, by a whole stream of disabled people of varying ages and backgrounds on the now defunct BBC message boards. As it is, the article will disappear with barely a whimper, and whose fault is that?!

Never mind the politics, what about the language?

As for the language of the article itself, like I say, I’ve heard channel 4  commentators use every one of those phrases on the list of words best avoided, repeatedly. One wonders whether they ever read the document. I doubt they care, they’ll just be happy to have snatched the Paralympics coverage from the jaws of the once smug BBC.

It’s wrong to call the athletes ‘brave’, ‘inspirational’ ‘suffers from’, ‘sufferrer’, ‘victim of’, ‘normal/abnormal’. Firstly, who decides what is normal or abnormal? it’s all relative depending on your own experience. What is normal for me as a disabled person will be abnormal to someone else. Things like falling being as natural as breathing, is true for me, but completely abnormal for someone else. To say ‘suffers from,’ ‘sufferer’ or ‘victim of’ makes us sound passive, like vegetables as if we have no life. We are not sufferers or victims, we are people who are living our lives in ways that are ‘normal’ for us, against the backdrop of the pigeon holes the Government, the DWP, the media and medical records try to squeeze us into.