This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/disabled-benefits-iain-duncan-smith

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The disabled and jobless need help, not harassment The disabled and jobless need help, not harassment
(about 17 hours later)
What would it take for the government to realise that being disabled isn’t some cunning ploy to con the welfare system? Rather, it is a fact of a person’s life that affects everything, not least their ability to work.What would it take for the government to realise that being disabled isn’t some cunning ploy to con the welfare system? Rather, it is a fact of a person’s life that affects everything, not least their ability to work.
Despite the government’s boast that the Work Programme is helping many long-term unemployed into work (and even there one might question what kind of work), charities say that the scheme continues to let down physically and mentally disabled people, not finding them employment and failing to understand their particular difficulties in embarking on job hunting and navigating the workplace. Does this surprise anyone? It seems clear to me that the system is stacked against disabled people.Despite the government’s boast that the Work Programme is helping many long-term unemployed into work (and even there one might question what kind of work), charities say that the scheme continues to let down physically and mentally disabled people, not finding them employment and failing to understand their particular difficulties in embarking on job hunting and navigating the workplace. Does this surprise anyone? It seems clear to me that the system is stacked against disabled people.
Some might point out that such back-to-work schemes are supposed to be voluntary for disabled people. However, increasingly, it would appear that there is good voluntary and bad voluntary. The bad type of voluntary being the kind that can be forced upon people if their disabled status is queried or refuted (the system is awash with cases of people claiming they’ve been wrongly and unfairly assessed).Some might point out that such back-to-work schemes are supposed to be voluntary for disabled people. However, increasingly, it would appear that there is good voluntary and bad voluntary. The bad type of voluntary being the kind that can be forced upon people if their disabled status is queried or refuted (the system is awash with cases of people claiming they’ve been wrongly and unfairly assessed).
Lest we forget, for a significant number of disabled people even the basics of employment are intimidating – from actually getting to work and having enough energy for a working day, to adjusting to the workplace as a long-term unemployed disabled person and fitting in any health appointments they may need.Lest we forget, for a significant number of disabled people even the basics of employment are intimidating – from actually getting to work and having enough energy for a working day, to adjusting to the workplace as a long-term unemployed disabled person and fitting in any health appointments they may need.
Even the job search can be daunting. Job hunting is becoming more complex and punishing for everyone, with disastrous benefits penalties for those who fail to keep pace. By all accounts, job hunting circa 2015 is an exhausting, relentless, soul-sapping crapshoot – even healthy people need computers, transport and endless stamina for interviews and filling out questionnaires. How are disabled people supposed to keep up? Short answer: without sustained, focused, properly managed and funded support, they can’t.Even the job search can be daunting. Job hunting is becoming more complex and punishing for everyone, with disastrous benefits penalties for those who fail to keep pace. By all accounts, job hunting circa 2015 is an exhausting, relentless, soul-sapping crapshoot – even healthy people need computers, transport and endless stamina for interviews and filling out questionnaires. How are disabled people supposed to keep up? Short answer: without sustained, focused, properly managed and funded support, they can’t.
Recently, Iain Duncan Smith mused on his department’s pathetic record in this area and deduced that, rather than it being his own failing, it must be the fault of vast swaths of diabolically prejudiced anti-disability employers – presumably twirling their evil moustaches. Does he think that we’re all idiots? While obviously this is true of some employers, it would be a bit of a stretch to claim that it fully explains the astounding failure rate.Recently, Iain Duncan Smith mused on his department’s pathetic record in this area and deduced that, rather than it being his own failing, it must be the fault of vast swaths of diabolically prejudiced anti-disability employers – presumably twirling their evil moustaches. Does he think that we’re all idiots? While obviously this is true of some employers, it would be a bit of a stretch to claim that it fully explains the astounding failure rate.
Duncan Smith also pondered on the fact that the employment and support allowance (ESA) assesses disabled people as either fit or unfit to work. “Things are rarely that simplistic,” he concluded. Well, “simplistic” ain’t good – then again, this fit/unfit business could make a soul feel uneasy. Excuse my suspicious mind, but it’s almost as though Duncan Smith is plotting to introduce a sliding scale whereupon even more disabled people are magically “reassessed” as fit to work.Duncan Smith also pondered on the fact that the employment and support allowance (ESA) assesses disabled people as either fit or unfit to work. “Things are rarely that simplistic,” he concluded. Well, “simplistic” ain’t good – then again, this fit/unfit business could make a soul feel uneasy. Excuse my suspicious mind, but it’s almost as though Duncan Smith is plotting to introduce a sliding scale whereupon even more disabled people are magically “reassessed” as fit to work.
Perhaps it’s time to readdress some facts that keep getting mysteriously lost in the Tory mix. First, a sizable number of disabled people are genuinely unable to work, through no fault of their own – it would seem to be a marker of a civilised society to stop hounding them with ongoing demands for proof when their circumstances have remained unchanged.Perhaps it’s time to readdress some facts that keep getting mysteriously lost in the Tory mix. First, a sizable number of disabled people are genuinely unable to work, through no fault of their own – it would seem to be a marker of a civilised society to stop hounding them with ongoing demands for proof when their circumstances have remained unchanged.
And of those people who could work, many require sustained assistance in both sourcing and maintaining long-term employment – the same help that charities are saying is not forthcoming. Without this support, trying to force disabled people into work looks about as logical as chucking a pair of damp trainers at them and suggesting they enter the London Marathon.And of those people who could work, many require sustained assistance in both sourcing and maintaining long-term employment – the same help that charities are saying is not forthcoming. Without this support, trying to force disabled people into work looks about as logical as chucking a pair of damp trainers at them and suggesting they enter the London Marathon.
No one wants to stop disabled people working, to patronise or stereotype them, or condemn them to a life in the shadows. However, helping disabled people back into employment should be just about that – helping them. Instead, we’re left with a flimsy cover for herding and bullying highly vulnerable people out of the benefits system.No one wants to stop disabled people working, to patronise or stereotype them, or condemn them to a life in the shadows. However, helping disabled people back into employment should be just about that – helping them. Instead, we’re left with a flimsy cover for herding and bullying highly vulnerable people out of the benefits system.
This is America. We don’t do free speech, EmilyThis is America. We don’t do free speech, Emily
Poor Emily Blunt. The actress made a joke about watching a Republican debate and wondering whether she’d done the right thing in becoming a US citizen (Blunt is married to American actor John Krasinski, and they have a child), and there was uproar, with one television presenter ordering her to leave America.Poor Emily Blunt. The actress made a joke about watching a Republican debate and wondering whether she’d done the right thing in becoming a US citizen (Blunt is married to American actor John Krasinski, and they have a child), and there was uproar, with one television presenter ordering her to leave America.
Related: Emily Blunt apologises for poking fun at her American citizenship
Blunt has since apologised, but she shouldn’t have to. The reaction was so out of proportion you’d have thought that she’d taken the American flag and burnt it live on-air, complete with a Hanoi Jane air-punch. Even had Blunt meant it seriously (she didn’t), in a free country such as America, citizenship doesn’t mean blind unquestioning allegiance to everything and everyone American on pain of expulsion. It means that an individual is now a citizen and thus entitled to, say, feel slightly aghast by a Republican debate, and express this with a vague half-witticism.Blunt has since apologised, but she shouldn’t have to. The reaction was so out of proportion you’d have thought that she’d taken the American flag and burnt it live on-air, complete with a Hanoi Jane air-punch. Even had Blunt meant it seriously (she didn’t), in a free country such as America, citizenship doesn’t mean blind unquestioning allegiance to everything and everyone American on pain of expulsion. It means that an individual is now a citizen and thus entitled to, say, feel slightly aghast by a Republican debate, and express this with a vague half-witticism.
In this context, Blunt being told to go home is puzzling. She’s already home. Evidently, she felt so at home that she was able to crack a political joke. If she’d chosen to go for citizenship in North Korea all this might make a bit more sense.In this context, Blunt being told to go home is puzzling. She’s already home. Evidently, she felt so at home that she was able to crack a political joke. If she’d chosen to go for citizenship in North Korea all this might make a bit more sense.
Roadkill pie? It’s ethical eatingRoadkill pie? It’s ethical eating
There’s been a Middle England rumpus at The Great British Bake Off. Contestant Ian Cumming presented a dish he’d named Roadkill Pie, saying he’d first been inspired to use “found meat” by a hare he’d discovered by the side of the road. As his pie contained guinea fowl, venison, sausage, streaky bacon, and partridge, some people started wondering where Cumming was doing his motoring – my guess would be Selfridge’s food hall.There’s been a Middle England rumpus at The Great British Bake Off. Contestant Ian Cumming presented a dish he’d named Roadkill Pie, saying he’d first been inspired to use “found meat” by a hare he’d discovered by the side of the road. As his pie contained guinea fowl, venison, sausage, streaky bacon, and partridge, some people started wondering where Cumming was doing his motoring – my guess would be Selfridge’s food hall.
Others were scandalised by the very idea of eating roadkill, but I don’t see why. Food safety issues aside, there’s a compelling argument for it being the ethical thing to do. Why are people shocked at the thought of eating creatures that have been killed by vehicles, but remain serene about the ongoing horrors of sections of the organised commercial food industry?Others were scandalised by the very idea of eating roadkill, but I don’t see why. Food safety issues aside, there’s a compelling argument for it being the ethical thing to do. Why are people shocked at the thought of eating creatures that have been killed by vehicles, but remain serene about the ongoing horrors of sections of the organised commercial food industry?
If I were an animal I’d take being randomly bumped off by a car over the machinations of an abattoir any day. In fact, eating an animal which has been killed naturally in this way is probably about as close to “vegan” as a meat-eater could get.If I were an animal I’d take being randomly bumped off by a car over the machinations of an abattoir any day. In fact, eating an animal which has been killed naturally in this way is probably about as close to “vegan” as a meat-eater could get.
Cumming then blew any chance of animal rights kudos by announcing that he tests how dangerous his roadkill morsels are by feeding bits to his cat first, as if the feline in question were some kind of ersatz royal taster, prepared to throw down one of its nine lives on behalf of its human master.Cumming then blew any chance of animal rights kudos by announcing that he tests how dangerous his roadkill morsels are by feeding bits to his cat first, as if the feline in question were some kind of ersatz royal taster, prepared to throw down one of its nine lives on behalf of its human master.
Not many animal lovers, even the non-vegetarian ones, would appreciate the idea of a pet copping it from ingesting toxic roadkill. Thanks to Bake Off for what could be viewed as yet another smudged, cracked window on the confused attitudes to animal welfare in Britain today.Not many animal lovers, even the non-vegetarian ones, would appreciate the idea of a pet copping it from ingesting toxic roadkill. Thanks to Bake Off for what could be viewed as yet another smudged, cracked window on the confused attitudes to animal welfare in Britain today.