Governing body or executioner?

May 2010 saw David Cameron come to power in the UK and taking pride of position as PM ~ however over the past 3 years it may have been prudent to market him as the GRIM REAPER in training. With all the cuts being made from DWP, NHS and not to forget the addition of the bedroom tax, Cameron and his cohorts are chalking up quite a death toll, which raises the question of "Is he running the country or trying to get his Reaper qualification?" Then not forgetting his cohorts that make up his cabinet ministers, that would be perfectly suited to the 9 rings of Hell in Alighieri's Divine Comedy, rather than be placed strategically throughout positions of power in the UK.  
 
The centre point for this thread is about the casualties that have been caused by Cameron & Co. As mentioned above, the areas that have been subjected to brutality are those involving the most vulnerable in society, the punching bags of the Tory party ~ if you will...  As alarming as that claim is, what should be considered as more alarming is that there have been ACTUAL deaths at the hands of Cameron and the rest due to the "CUTS".  So at what stage does running a country mean you get to don a black cloak and scythe amd start down a road that kills people? The argument is used against gun companies or Tobacco giants they may not be the one to pull the trigger so to speak, but their responsiblity does not end there either.  
 
Welfare rerform death toll  Link for a list of 34 names that have died as a result of welfare reform.  The bedroom tax has now racked up a list of its own casualties too. Again Cameron dons his cloak and scythe and the the death toll rises at the hands of the Tory party. Fuel poverty will be the next on Death's list, with prices set to soar again over the coming Winter months, yet when pushed to step in, Cameron can only step in and assist the energy companies by cutting obligations even futher to OAP's and benefit claimants. Death in this case does not actually ride a white horse, more like a white spark from the energy companies... ALL THE WAY TO THE TORY PARTY COFFERS!
 
The grave's the market place where all must meet
Both rich and poor, as well as small and great;
If life were merchandise, that gold could buy,
The rich would live -- only the poor would die.  
(last paragraph from Death and the Lady  Lesley Nelson Burns)

Seeing this in black and white makes the intention of the tory party undeniable.  
 
Finally the NHS cuts have also racked up enough casualties too, 20 billion taken from the budget 5,000 nurses now unemployed and being admitted into any NHS hospital has become like something you would find on a novelty game show, all the pain of injury, however just minus the audience laughing at your discomfort.

Really surprised the statistics are so modest Red - but I do think there's definitely a case for thinking the Tories are intending some form of social cleansing.

I suspect myself the gap between poor and the rest has just got so wide that many people just don't get it - how the loss of a few pence on the weekly income can make the difference between surviving and the other thing - how disabilities have a whole set of social and practical repercussions that ATOS cannot measure - how living in the house where you brought up your family should remain a right even if that means you have some spare space - how the performance of children in school, and adults in the workplace does to some extent depend on having a safe home, enough to eat and freedom from fear.

This horrible government is bringing the principle of 'divide and rule' to a new level of meaning; they are capitalising on the 'us' and 'them' style of thinking on which so much of right wing (and it has to be said left wing) propaganda depends. They are ably supported and assisted by the largely right wing media - but I think to call them 'evil' or to give them any form of distinction would be wrong - the policies of this government are the policies of nasty small people.

History will show that these individuals who are kiling off our disabled and poor citizens are as banal and pathetic as the Nazis turned out to be - this kind of nastiness is never impressive.

This might be appropriate on this thread:-
 

boatlady wrote:This horrible government is bringing the principle of 'divide and rule' to a new level of meaning; they are capitalising on the 'us' and 'them' style of thinking on which so much of right wing (and it has to be said left wing) propaganda depends. They are ably supported and assisted by the largely right wing media - but I think to call them 'evil' or to give them any form of distinction would be wrong - the policies of this government are the policies of nasty small people.

History will show that these individuals who are kiling off our disabled and poor citizens are as banal and pathetic as the Nazis turned out to be - this kind of nastiness is never impressive.

 
There are only us and them, and they are following their national destiny as descendants of all the various peoples who have attacked and conquered Britain (and particularly England).   They hate the British people and want us cowed and starving, as they always have.   The more we kid ourselves about this, the more we fail to support those who could defend us, as we let down the miners.   Do you think the rich suddenly thought of this class war when they found the liberals had no honour or guts?   It is their eternal aim to destroy us, and they never give up.

"There are only us and them ...."
 
Exactly, Penderyn, and THEY have had 947 years practice since the Normans introduced the Feudal system.  When the British Empire came to an end in WW2, our "Ruling Classes" turned their gaze inward.

Thank you for the picture Ivan, it suits my thread and what is actually going on in the UK.
 
boatlady, your post says it all and I agree the true numbers of people suffering at the hands from the "VILE BILE" of the Tory party may never be known, but I hope that this is passed down from generation to generation so that there will NEVER EVER be a Tory party in power right through the ages and let us hope they DIE OUT fast just like the NAZIS did.:yeahthat:

And yet you could just about squeeze a cigarette paper between the Tory and Labour policies/ideas/proposals....I guess it goes to show some people have no idea or interest in the 'substance' of politics or policies, but prefer the tribalism and sense of belonging to a particular group.

Labours' latest Tory ideas are to......1. Now to support free schools.....2. Force under 25's to take a job or lose benefits after 1 year of unemployment and over 25's after 2 years of unemployment.

Of course I am waiting for the condemation of these proposals from certain quarters, but I sure I will be waiting a long time.....Funny old world innit?!

blueturando wrote:And yet you could just about squeeze a cigarette paper between the Tory and Labour policies/ideas/proposals....I guess it goes to show some people have no idea or interest in the 'substance' of politics or policies, but prefer the tribalism and sense of belonging to a particular group.

Labours' latest Tory ideas are to......1. Now to support free schools.....2. Force under 25's to take a job or lose benefits after 1 year of unemployment and over 25's after 2 years of unemployment.

Of course I am waiting for the condemation of these proposals from certain quarters, but I sure I will be waiting a long time.....Funny old world innit?!

Again, another one that takes points and twists them to fit with their own agenda... I know the ledge that the tories perch upon is lonely blue but Labour still remain with their dignity intact, unlike the tories so please don't try to drag us down with you... Ok Supporting of free schools, unlike the tories, Labour will be placing TEACHERS in them and not average joe with zero experince. Under 25's will be put into employment with some level of assurity not something with a ZERO hour contract behind it, or forced slave labour working for your benefits to provide cheap labour for some tory donor nonsense..

Again it depends on how you convey something that would determine how it's read, your way does sound better for those supporting tories, however it's just not all that accurate... There may indeed be something tribal in our belief system, but when was that ever a bad thing to look out for more than just No#.1

Under 25's will be put into employment with some level of assurity

Not so long ago you were saying that making people take a job was a bad thing...Have you changed you mind?  

I think if a Labour government can create or find jobs for the long term unemployed, that have some kind of job security, that carry a wage paid at least at minimum wage level, in short, jobs that actually enhance a person's dignity and life choices - maybe strongly encouraging people to take these jobs would be no bad thing - on the other hand, forcing people to take a 'work placement' with no job security, no living wage, and only the prospect of loss of benefit if it doesn't work out - maybe that's not something we should be supporting?

blueturando wrote:And yet you could just about squeeze a cigarette paper between the Tory and Labour policies/ideas/proposals....I guess it goes to show some people have no idea or interest in the 'substance' of politics or policies, but prefer the tribalism and sense of belonging to a particular group.

Labours' latest Tory ideas are to......1. Now to support free schools.....2. Force under 25's to take a job or lose benefits after 1 year of unemployment and over 25's after 2 years of unemployment.

Of course I am waiting for the condemation of these proposals from certain quarters, but I sure I will be waiting a long time.....Funny old world innit?!

blue. When you have an idle moment, look up the word PRAGMATISM in the Dictionary. It explains why politicians behave as they do.

Ivan wrote:This might be appropriate on this thread:-
 

So very glad I was not drinking something when I saw this, I don't think my computer would of been spared:D  Still chuckling hours later Great pic Ivan

blue wrote-
And yet you could just about squeeze a cigarette paper between the Tory and Labour policies/ideas/proposals

 
That's what the Tories want the public to think blue. The very fact is it is not the policies, but the manner in which they are implemented that is the difference. A policy which is implemented fairly is one thing ,another which is implemented with cunning and with an uncaring mercenary slant to it is another.
 
You can as Red says " one that takes points and twists them to fit with their own agenda" Do that any old time but the facts remain that Tory policy is profit first regardless of how it is achieved, privatise everything that can be executed to bleed the public to feed the shareholders at the expense of services and value for money. It is as plain as a pike staff to those who wish to see the truth that under Tory rule as it is today and since Thatcher's watch the objective is wealth distribution from bottom and now middle to the few at the top. No one can deny this without resorting to not telling the truth.

blueturando. For your reference, and that of others, the name of the board moderator is listed underneath the list of topics on each board (but not under each individual thread). That person can moderate on the boards which they have chosen, and they are supported by the three members of the administration team who can intervene anywhere on the entire forum if necessary.
 
I've decided not to reply to your personal message. As I’ve now found out that you sent it to at least two other staff members, it hardly remains “personal”. As you've betrayed the concept of a personal message, I have no hesitation in revealing what you wrote: “You’re acting like a coward Ivan who has thrown his toys out of the pram, maybe because my post has shown up your lies and you're scared to let other members see that.” I don’t tell lies, and if you think I’ve done so I challenge you to list them. Then maybe I’ll reciprocate. What was it you told us on 24 September? Oh yes:-
 

You may not like Tory policies, but at least they are up front about them.

 
(LOL. “No cuts to frontline services”, “No top-down re-organisation of the NHS”, “No plans to increase VAT”, “3,000 more midwives”, “No cuts to Sure Start”. Were the Tories “up front” about trebling tuition fees?)
 
You don’t need to “guess” that I deleted your post, since I left my name after I’d done so! I’d previously said: “You wonder why I call you a Tory troll”, after you’d concocted a spurious argument out of nothing. You are a troll.
 
Wikipedia defines a troll as:-
 
“A person who sows discord on the internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
 
I’m afraid that’s you in a nutshell, mister. Would you like to explain how, in your opinion, 'troll' describes my role at Cutting Edge?  
 
To get back to the discussion….
 
Just in case you’ve forgotten, Labour isn’t in power at the moment. So why don’t you concentrate on what’s happening right now? You could start by telling us why you still support the Tories when you seem unable or unwilling to defend so much of the cruelty and destruction which they’ve been inflicting on this country? Why does the seventh richest country in the world have 500,000 people reliant on foodbanks under this government?
 
You want my views on free schools? Fine. I don’t support them at all. Removing yet another part of the fabric of society from democratic control is wrong in my book. I would also abolish all faith schools, because I think they breed prejudice and intolerance and because I think religion (as distinct from religious education) should play no part in schools. And while we’re about it, I’d integrate all private schools into the state system; they just perpetuate the class system and buy privilege, often for people completely lacking in real talent (as the Eton gangsters currently running the country demonstrate almost on a daily basis). If Labour policy is going to be an extension of free schools, I’m against it. Happy now?
 
Despite the well-worn Tory myth that “Labour is soft on scroungers”, I’ve yet to come across anyone in the party who believes that able-bodied people should be allowed to remain on social security (to give it its correct name) for ever if jobs and retraining are available. Despite your previous unfounded assertions, the numbers of such people are very small, especially in relation to the exaggerated attention they’ve received from the Tory tabloids, no doubt to distract attention from the tax avoiders and evaders who do so much more damage to the UK economy.
 
I’ve just been reading what Rachel Reeves has to say on this subject, and you could “squeeze” a great deal more than your “cigarette paper” between her proposals and the cruel and demeaning policies of Iain Duncan Smith. In case you’ve forgotten in just two weeks, the Tories are promising no JSA and no housing benefits for under 25s, regardless of the fact that they might have left school at 16 and been paying national insurance ever since. Labour is not saying that and is planning to repeal the bedroom tax and to introduce a jobs guarantee scheme, whereby under-25s will be offered a job after one year of being unemployed, while over-25s will be offered one after two years out of work.
 
If there is a job available in such a way, I have no problem, and I doubt if anyone else does, with an able-bodied person being asked either to take it or to accept some retraining for another role. The problem most of us have is with the lack of respect shown by the likes of Osborne and Duncan Smith to people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, along with the callous treatment of the sick and disabled and even the terminally ill.

blueturando wrote:

Under 25's will be put into employment with some level of assurity

Not so long ago you were saying that making people take a job was a bad thing...Have you changed you mind?  

Do not play DUMB with me blue you know exactly what I was saying, as Ivan has said many a time on here you like to twist peoples words to suit your stupid Tory Ideology carry on  

There is a huge difference to what the Labour party and the Tory party will do to get people back to work.

Tory Way ; Force the unemployed to go on Workfare jobs supposidly for training to help get more experience so they get a real job, when did stacking shelves or other such MEANIAL tasks constitute experience ? most of the places they are sent are Tory donors or possible Tory donors because of the money they are saving from not having to pay some one the minimum wage for around six months.

The Tory recent RUSE to get the under 25s to work for 30-35 hours per week for there JSA, how are these people supposed to go look for a real job when there week is taken up with working for there JSA no doubt the Tory donors will benefit from this again just like the Workfare FARCE. If they refuse to work for buttons (which is around £53.00 per week) there JSA is stopped SANCTIONED, they would be working beside someone that is doing the same job as them for around £220.00 per week.

The Labour Way ; They will tax the bankers bonuses and use the money to help pay for the under 25s wages to a company that is willing to take them on train them up properly so that they get REAL JOB experience, with a decent wage so they are not a burden on the welfare state HENCE SAVING MONEY for the treasury. This would be the Labour way they would make the people that caused the financial CRASH in 2008 pay for there GREED and not the people that are innocent of this crime, and it looks like there would be more money coming into the treasury via WINDFALL TAX the energy companies have been getting away with it for too long overcharging customers so there shareholders get MASSIVE dividends.:yeahthat: 

blueturando wrote:-
Labours' latest Tory ideas are to......to support free schools.

 
For those who bother with the details and not just tabloid headlines, there are some differences:-
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t634p40-should-gove-be-using-children-as-pawns-in-his-school-privatisation-plans#45642

Who has more blood on their hands - David Cameron or Tony Blair?

Dan Fante. Tony Blair brokered peace in Northern Ireland within a year of coming to power. I wonder how much blood that saved? But I presume you’re referring to British involvement in the USA’s attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
I understood the reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan but I was opposed to the attack on Iraq; it had nothing to do with the so-called ‘war on terror’ and was more about the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld wanting to privatise a Middle Eastern country. I don’t think the UK should have had any involvement, yet to read what some people post you’d think that the Iraq war was all the responsibility of Blair and that it wasn’t Bush’s idea.
 
Would any lives have been saved if we hadn’t joined in those two campaigns? Yes, the lives of over 600 British servicemen. Would Saddam Hussein have gone on killing his own people if he hadn’t been removed from power? Undoubtedly. What has caused most of the casualties in Iraq since 2003? Sunni Iraqis killing Shia Iraqis and vice versa. I can’t see how deaths arising from Iraqis setting off bombs against each other can be pinned on Tony Blair.
 
I can, however, see that the deaths of some of the 10,600 sick and disabled people who died within six weeks of being assessed as “fit to work” (some would no doubt have died anyway) can be directly attributed to Cameron and his vile government, especially those who were in such chronic despair after losing their benefits that they committed suicide.
 
You might want to include Thatcher in your comparison. Her opportunistic war over a few worthless rocks in the South Atlantic (which she had been trying to get rid of two years earlier) cost 907 lives in just a couple of months.

"Who has more blood on their hands - David Cameron or Tony Blair? "

Perhaps as important, why is the (not publicly elected) Prime Minister able to take our Nation to War, single-handed?

oftenwrong wrote:"Who has more blood on their hands - David Cameron or Tony Blair? "

Perhaps as important, why is the (not publicly elected) Prime Minister able to take our Nation to War, single-handed?

That was maybe true in the past OW, Ed Miliband is a different kettle of fish as you know he stopped Cameron in his tracks on the road to Syria.

Ivan wrote:Dan Fante. Tony Blair brokered peace in Northern Ireland within a year of coming to power. I wonder how much blood that saved? But I presume you’re referring to British involvement in the USA’s attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

That was highly commendable and you're probably talking about dozens of people. Maybe hundreds.

Ivan wrote:
I understood the reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan but I was opposed to the attack on Iraq; it had nothing to do with the so-called ‘war on terror’ and was more about the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld wanting to privatise a Middle Eastern country. I don’t think the UK should have had any involvement, yet to read what some people post you’d think that the Iraq war was all the responsibility of Blair and that it wasn’t Bush’s idea.

Erm, who is saying (or indeed who has ever said) that the wars were all Blair's idea and not Bush's? That doesn't mean he doesn't take a great deal of responsibility for them. It would have been far more difficult for an international coalition to have been formed without the UK though. In the case of Iraq I believe Blair was guilty of allowing policy to shape the intelligence against Saddam and not the other way around.

Ivan wrote:
Would any lives have been saved if we hadn’t joined in those two campaigns? Yes, the lives of over 600 British servicemen. Would Saddam Hussein have gone on killing his own people if he hadn’t been removed from power? Undoubtedly. What has caused most of the casualties in Iraq since 2003? Sunni Iraqis killing Shia Iraqis and vice versa. I can’t see how deaths arising from Iraqis setting off bombs against each other can be pinned on Tony Blair.

The amount of lives that have been as a direct result and as an indirect result of the war in Iraq is highly contentious but a recent study puts is at nigh on half a million people (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256). Are they all Blair's fault, directly? No. But that's a huge amount of casualties for a country we were supposed to be liberating, wouldn't you agree? If the study is correct that's a 50% higher death rate than under Saddam (bearing in mind the country went through 10 years of what was probably the most extensive international sanctions ever).

Ivan wrote:
I can, however, see that the deaths of some of the 10,600 sick and disabled people who died within six weeks of being assessed as “fit to work” (some would no doubt have died anyway) can be directly attributed to Cameron and his vile government, especially those who were in such chronic despair after losing their benefits that they committed suicide.

I'm not in favour of the current policy by any means but you're going to have to back up those figures with evidence if you're going to try and prove going to work caused a significant number of those people to die.

Ivan wrote:
You might want to include Thatcher in your comparison. Her opportunistic war over a few worthless rocks in the South Atlantic (which she had been trying to get rid of two years earlier) cost 907 lives in just a couple of months.

I'm anything but pro-Thatcher, Ivan, but that's not quite true. The Falklands were and still are British, inhabited by British people who speak English and have what would probably be best described as a 'British Culture'. They islands were invaded by a somewhat desperate Argentine military junta. Argentina's claim to the islands is spurious at best. Defending the people was a far more legitimate means of using British Armed forces than the other conflicts we've just mentioned, in my opinion at least. Also, they aren't worthless rocks. Even then their potential mineral / oil resources were being discussed I believe although it was thought it may be too expensive to exploit them for the foreseeable. These resources are key to the recent renewed Argentine interest in 'Las Malvinas'.

As an aside, I'm not defending Cameron in any way, shape or form but I think the grim reaper epithet is ill-advised given the actions of the last Labour government, which is what I was getting at.

Redflag wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:"Who has more blood on their hands - David Cameron or Tony Blair? "

Perhaps as important, why is the (not publicly elected) Prime Minister able to take our Nation to War, single-handed?

That was maybe true in the past OW, Ed Miliband is a different kettle of fish as you know he stopped Cameron in his tracks on the road to Syria.

That's a very good point. He was roundly criticised at the time by the Tories for 'playing politics' but those actions meant the US also delayed which allowed the current compromise to be reached. Air strikes could easily have led to an escalation and, when you factor in the Russian and Chinese troops already on the ground in Syria, it could have led to a very complicated and dangerous international crisis.

"The Falklands were and still are British, inhabited by British people who speak English and have what would probably be best described as a 'British Culture'." Presumably condensed for reasons of space, DF.

The Falklands were a financial basket-case throughout the period following WW2, and Whitehall was casting about for excuses to pull the plug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands

A report by Lord Shackleton was delivered in 1977 documenting the economic stagnation in the islands. It nevertheless concluded that the islands made a net contribution to the British economy and had economic potential for development. Recommendations included oil exploration, exploitation of the fisheries, extension of the Stanley runway, the creation of a development agency, the expansion of the road network, expansion of the facilities at Stanley harbour and the breakdown of absentee landlord owned farms into family units. The report was largely ignored at the time, as it was felt that acting upon it would sour relations with Argentina. However, a reprise of the report by Lord Shackleton in 1982 following the Falklands War became the blueprint for subsequent economic development of the islands.

"I'm not in favour of the current policy by any means but you're going to have to back up those figures with evidence if you're going to try and prove going to work caused a significant number of those people to die."
I know of 3 people who have died in my area of the South East, 2 were suicide cases following forced visits to ATOS and another who died of worry about losing benefits because of a severe mental problem.






At the heading of this thread Red Flag wrote-----


"Welfare rerform death toll Link for a list of 34 names that have died as a result of welfare reform."

I ask, does the media/press highlight these deaths?
like hell they do and why is the question?

As far as Blair and Iraq are concerned we should be debating this yet again on the apropriate thread, as we are getting off topic again. Thank you.

Mel wrote:"I'm not in favour of the current policy by any means but you're going to have to back up those figures with evidence if you're going to try and prove going to work caused a significant number of those people to die."
I know of 3 people who have died in my area of the South East, 2 were suicide cases following forced visits to ATOS and another who died of worry about losing benefits because of a severe mental problem.

Hi Mel, the cuts have no doubt had a devastating effect on lots of people in many different ways but the problem with responses like "died of worry" is that they can too easily be deflected by those that favour the cuts on ideological grounds. This is why the headline figure of 34 deaths in OP isn't particularly helpful in the debate. It's too difficult to prove the direct link. If you go to the actual site, some of the deaths don't even have a back story so we only have the site's creators word for it that they've died because of the cuts. Even when there is a back story the evidence is often opinion based, with the likes of the Mirror putting their slant on it. One particular case, reported on by the Daily Mail, blames the suicide of a young women on not getting a job after 100s of applications were turned down. That's a very tragic case but to blame youth unemployment on the UK at present purely on the Tories ignores the bigger picture (that's not my saying they haven't played their part). In other words, the use of too many emotive arguments plays into the hands people arguing for the cuts. As soon as they say "prove it" you get bogged down and they've won.

Dan Fante said:

 "I'm not in favour of the current policy by any means but you're going to have to back up those figures with evidence if you're going to try and prove going to work caused a significant number of those people to die. I'm not in favour of the current policy by any means but you're going to have to back up those figures with evidence if you're going to try and prove going to work caused a significant number of those people to die."

That was not what Ivan said or meant. What was the case is that many claimants who after an Atos assesment died soon after and before they could find a job, the inference being that Atos where/are removing benefits from people who are on their last legs yet they "Atos" say they are fit to work, whereas in reality Atos aren't fit for purpose.

bobby wrote:
That was not what Ivan said or meant. What was the case is that many claimants who after an Atos assesment died soon after and before they could find a job, the inference being that Atos where/are removing benefits from people who are on their last legs yet they "Atos" say they are fit to work, whereas in reality Atos aren't fit for purpose.

I take no issue with the bit in bold, Berb, but that's not the argument Ivan made prior to the reply from me that you've just quoted.

Hello Dan. Quote " Even when there is a back story the evidence is often opinion based, with the likes of the Mirror putting their slant on it.

Of course the likes of the Tory loving Daily Mail keep deathly quiet on the subject and yet when it's the other way round anything that is in favour of Tory policy (very little if anything at all) is front page headlines.

Our good friend bobby has it in one when he says Quote " the inference being that Atos where/are removing benefits from people who are on their last legs yet they "Atos" say they are fit to work, whereas in reality Atos aren't fit for purpose..
No doubt Cameron is able to silence the BBC and others along with his mate Boris pulling police strings to slow the process of things such as the Andy Caulson case along with madame Brooks, both having been in close proximity to the con man raving Dave.

Mel wrote:
Of course the likes of the Tory loving Daily Mail keep deathly quiet on the subject

If that's the case how come the link in the opening post cites the Daily Mail as a source for one of its claimed victims then?

Mel wrote:No doubt Cameron is able to silence the BBC.

Huh  

Ahh yes, the biddable BBC.   Strange however that, again, I think it was this morning that Today had a go about Atos and another suicide and were quite clearly suggesting that it was not fit for purpose.  

I do feel a bit sorry for the Beeb. They can never be right.   Either the conservatives are after them for being too lefty or Labour are after them for being the running dogs of the capitalist society. The fact that in any given period both parties will be squealing about bias suggests to me that they (the Beeb) have it about right.  

Politicians always moan when they get cornered by Humphries or Paxman. Personally I love it.   To misquote Apocalypse Now... I love the smell of ordure in the morning!

Bellatori wrote:-
I do feel a bit sorry for the Beeb. They can never be right.   Either the conservatives are after them for being too lefty or Labour are after them for being the running dogs of the capitalist society.

 
Chris Patten is the chair of the BBC Trust. He still takes the Tory whip in the House of Lords. He has financial interests in private healthcare firms, which might help to explain why the passage through Parliament of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 went largely unreported by the BBC.
 
You will find plenty of evidence of the current right-wing bias of the BBC on this thread:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t193-the-gradual-destruction-and-right-wing-bias-of-the-bbc

If that's the case how come the link in the opening post cites the Daily Mail as a source for one of its claimed victims then?

 
That particular piece was not about welfare reform, nor was it about victims of the reform, nor was it about the concequences of those who were railroaded to ATOS. It was about a young jobless girl who took an overdose after failing so many times to find a job.
 
Do try to keep up Dan.  
 
.

I think there are some generally accepted statisitics that show about 40% of people who are found fit to work after their WCA assessment subsequently have that decision overturned on appeal. We could argue about the interpretation of that fact, but it's my view that any operation with a 40% failure rate is not fit for purpose.

As to deaths of people declared fit for work by ATOS - I think the statistics are out there.
Interpretation of those facts is something we can all mull over for as long as we like, but again I would want to say that any process that gets it so wrong so many times probably needs looking at.

I've recently succeeded in getting benefits paid to someone who has been without benefit since March, and has had three or four WCA appointments cancelled by ATOS. When I contacted the company to query why so many appointments are being cancelled I was told ' you don't understand the pressure we're under here - we haven't got the staff to cope with the level of demand'.

I would want to suggest that that comment indicates that ATOS is not fit for purpose, and that because its purpose is the regulation of necessary benefits for the most vulnerable members of society, it's incompetence and insufficiency does HARM to those individuals who are subject to its processes.

I'm not really interested in whatever spin the media or the political parties put on this - I am VERY ANGRY that i am dealing so often with people denied the necessities of life because systems put in place by the government we pay for have failed again and again to serve their needs.

There are people who cheat the system. When the general public are asked they always repeat this as a mantra. What this government is doing is clever, effective and totally unprincipled. They are working on the basis that any claimant is guilty until proved innocent. If you want to appeal, fine but it will be made as hard as possible. This is effective as some 500,000 have decided not to challenge the review. The government points to this as a success story. Half a million 'bogus' claimants off the register.

Then you have to count the cost. The suicides. The deaths from other causes. I posted elsewhere that I heard the BBC giving a minister a hard time over ATOS and yet another death either today or yesterday. I also posted elsewhere that most people are concerned with a government that is fair. They are not desperately worried by the colour of the party BUT they do care about fairness.

Whilst 'Jo Public' may go on about benefit cheats I do not believe that, if asked, any of those responding would claim the deaths that are being repeatedly reported and the hardship cases that are being highlighted and the seriously ill who are being turned away IS IN ANY WAY ACCEPTABLE.

When boatlady says "I'm not really interested in whatever spin the media or the political parties put on this - I am VERY ANGRY that i am dealing so often with people denied the necessities of life because systems put in place by the government we pay for have failed again and again to serve their needs"

I have to agree. It makes me angry to. We are a small country trying to punch above our weight. Why do we need nuclear weapons... a few power stations would be better use for the material. The money would be better spent on providing a fair benefit system.

Ivan wrote:

Bellatori wrote:-
I do feel a bit sorry for the Beeb. They can never be right.   Either the conservatives are after them for being too lefty or Labour are after them for being the running dogs of the capitalist society.

 
Chris Patten is the chair of the BBC Trust. He still takes the Tory whip in the House of Lords. He has financial interests in private healthcare firms, which might help to explain why the passage through Parliament of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 went largely unreported by the BBC.
 
You will find plenty of evidence of the current right-wing bias of the BBC on this thread:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t193-the-gradual-destruction-and-right-wing-bias-of-the-bbc

Well of course you think that... You would hardly be a left wing forum if you did not but then if you care to look on the internet elsewhere you then find

Mark Thompson: “There was massive left-wing bias at the BBC”

For every left wing quote you find there will be a right wing quote. Which is exactly my point  

As I've remarked elsewhere, my sensation is of our having been occupied by an invading Foreign Power in the shape of a Tory-led coalition. They really don't seem to like us.

Bellatori wrote:-
For every left wing quote you find there will be a right wing quote. Which is exactly my point

 
My point is that I’d rather deal with facts than just quotes and opinions. In an attempt to negate my argument, all you offer us is the opinion of one man. Mark Thompson believes that the BBC leaned to the left thirty years ago, but not so in recent years. As he is a member of the posh gentleman’s Reform Club and someone who was coining £834,000 a year from the BBC in 2010, I can guess where he stands on the political spectrum.
 
Fact - Chris Patten, Andrew Neil, Michael Portillo, Jeremy Clarkson, Nick Robinson and Bullingdon boy David Dimbleby are all Tories who have major roles at the BBC. Patten was put in place by that notorious left-winger Cameron.

Facts - Craig Oliver became Cameron’s spin doctor after he had to get shot of Coulson. Oliver was previously the controller of BBC global news. His wife, Joanna Gosling, is currently a newsreader at the BBC.

Fact - Tory ministers are four times more likely than Labour shadow ministers to be given air time by the BBC

Fact - business representatives on the BBC news outnumbered trade union spokespersons by 19 to one in 2012.

Facts - on ‘Question Time’, Tory-leaning journalists outnumber their LD and Labour-leaning contributors by over two to one, while all leading trade unionists combined have been on less than Nigel Farage.
 
If you can’t be bothered to read the relevant thread, at least look at these sources:-
 
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/oliver-huitson/how-bbc-betrayed-nhs-exclusive-report-on-two-years-of-censorship-and-distorti

http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2012/11/there-bias-bbc-question-time

For every left wing quote you find there will be a right wing quote. Which is exactly my point

 
The question is Bell, is it a 50 50, or 80 20 in favour of the Tories?

Mel wrote:

For every left wing quote you find there will be a right wing quote. Which is exactly my point

 
The question is Bell, is it a 50 50, or 80 20 in favour of the Tories?

Its quite funny OW how everybody says the the BBC is left wing, that is until there is a right wing gov't, then all the right wingers come out of the wood work, will they stick the right wingers in the cupboard come May 2015?

Mel wrote:

If that's the case how come the link in the opening post cites the Daily Mail as a source for one of its claimed victims then?

 
That particular piece was not about welfare reform, nor was it about victims of the reform, nor was it about the concequences of those who were railroaded to ATOS. It was about a young jobless girl who took an overdose after failing so many times to find a job.
 
Do try to keep up Dan.  
 
.

Mel, if that particular claim is not about welfare reform, why is it being included in the amount of people who have supposedly died as a result of the Tory's welfare reforms? I actually agree that it is difficult to attribute that directly to welfare reform. The fact that I already said as much earlier on this very page might have told you that. The point being, that if we both agree at least one of the people in the link OP's death can't be put down to welfare reforms then it highlights the difficulty of trying to directly attribute deaths to this government policy, which was the point I was making. Do try to keep up, Mel.