jeffs posts
This article titled “PIP: the disability benefit that almost killed my wife” was written by Adam Jacques, for The Guardian on Friday 10th November 2017 06.00 UTC
My wife tried to kill herself in March. She took an overdose – while I was watching TV in the next room. Cue, in short succession: 30 minutes of heart-stopping panic, a nerve-jangling ambulance trip to A&E, an admission to a secure mental health unit, and a longer stay recovering in a crisis house.
Acute episodes such as this can be a recurring reality for someone with a longstanding mental health condition. From her battles with depression and struggles to get out of bed in the mornings, to anxiety so overpowering that a trip on a bus triggers a blind panic, for my wife (let’s call her Bea) life is a titanic battle to stay afloat. She experiences overwhelming feelings of worthlessness, guilt and impulsive urges to self-harm that can flood her mind and distort her thinking. Socialising with friends is hard, while work in the past year has been out of the question. But she’s also incredibly smart, funny, kind and brave.
Related: PIP is a disaster for disabled people. At last the full horror is emerging | Frances Ryan
Mental health is complex, but something simple triggered Bea’s overdose: a devastating letter from a “decision-maker” at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), informing her that her claim for personal independence payment, a disability benefit, had been unsuccessful. She’s not the first, and won’t be the last, to experience the dismissive treatment that people with severe mental health conditions can undergo when accessing the benefits system. And PIP, as the benefit is called, is one of the worst offenders.
PIP is supposed to offset some of the extra costs of a disability. Applicants are evaluated by health workers from the private firms Atos or Capita, who forward their assessments to a DWP decision-maker – who scores you on “daily living” and “mobility” (you need at least eight points for each to qualify). Currently nearly 3 million people claim some element of PIP, and my wife expected to be one of them. As did her benefits adviser, an NHS psychiatrist and a psychologist. So, armed with a dossier of supporting medical documentation, Bea applied. That was last November. I’ve seen glaciers move faster.
The thing about accompanying someone to a PIP assessment when you have your own disability is that you’re in danger of stealing their thunder. I have cystic fibrosis, I’m undergoing a lung transplant assessment, and I’m on oxygen 24/7. Bea has a hidden disease and most people aren’t trained to recognise the signs of her inner turmoil. Which means the receptionist is staring expectantly at me, oxygen cylinder strapped to my back, rather than my wife as we approach.
The good news about my wife’s assessor is that she didn’t ask Bea why her suicide attempts hadn’t been successful – a tactic that, shockingly, several applicants have claimed their own interviewers used. The bad news was that she displayed a frostiness to put the Snow Queen to shame. Bea’s acute distress during questioning – her body rigid, lips trembling, eyes welling up – was coldly met with impatience and irritation.
Imagine admitting to a series of deeply embarrassing difficulties that you battle with on a daily basis. How, for example, venturing outside on to a bustling high street feels akin to an artillery bombardment, a barrage to your senses. Or how, on some days, your body feels so leaden and heavy you can’t even raise yourself to sit up in bed. You’d hope that they would take those difficulties seriously.
A DWP disability assessment questionnaire. Photograph: Alamy
The biggest shock for Bea wasn’t that her overall PIP application was rejected, but rather the manner of that rejection: being told that her claim had been unsuccessful because, in the assessor’s opinion, she was functioning perfectly normally at the assessment – thus scoring zero points, with the pages of supporting medical evidence overlooked.
This letter struck to the very core of Bea’s difficulties. “I’ve been rejected,” she said flatly. First came disbelief, then anger, and finally a tsunami of shame. She stumbled to the bathroom and locked herself in. She went catatonic, lying on the bathroom floor in a stupor, occasionally jerking back to reality with ragged gasps of panic.
Perhaps if they had read these medical notes they might have seen how, along with a severe and complex anxiety disorder, my wife’s mental health diagnosis features a particular vulnerability towards “rejection” and “abandonment”. But in their dash to get through her case and on to the next, they did not see it – or even worse, they ignored it.
There’s nothing quite like witnessing your wife tumble through a gaping chasm, to see that there’s something rotten at the heart of a welfare assessment system. From what we experienced, the wrong people are doing the wrong assessments with the wrong tools, using incorrect assumptions. And it left me reeling: how could this happen to my wife? I discovered that her experience is just the calamitous tip of a PIP-denying iceberg.While the DWP claims it doesn’t operate quotas to save money, figures released in April, covering just six months of 2016, showed an enormous expansion in claimants receiving zero points, up to 83,000. That’s only 10,000 fewer than in the previous 12 months.
This raises huge concerns about the assessment process – especially given that, when rejected by the DWP, 65% of applicants who appeal to a tribunal get the ruling reversed. A panel of welfare experts told the work and pensions select committee earlier this year that the whole process was “inherently flawed”, with medical evidence often ignored by officials during the initial assessment.
And it gets worse. New PIP guidelines were added this year, whereby mental health claimants whose mobility is limited due to “psychological distress” are now in effect barred from gaining the mobility component. “We want to make sure we get the money to the really disabled people who need it,” George Freeman, the director of Theresa May’s policy unit, said on the subject of anxiety on BBC radio in February. Bea may not be on oxygen 24/7, as I am, but her condition – and her symptoms of acute psychological distress – can be just as disabling. Acute anxiety that leads to dissociation is a physiological response: your body shuts down.
Many MPs have concerns too: the Tory MP Peter Bone declared in a Commons debate in February that “I am fed up with seeing [constituents] who clearly should have been awarded PIP.” Bea’s outraged welfare rights adviser recalled a previous PIP rejection by letter of another client, when it was crudely stated that as the individual wasn’t rocking backwards and forwards during the assessment, there was clearly nothing wrong.
After Bea’s discharge, I found myself constantly checking on her, terrified she had taken another overdose. But one weekend when I was away, visiting my sister, it happened again. A close friend came to her aid. There’s no time for fighting the benefits system when your wife is in a psychiatric unit. When Bea was finally home once again, and felt ready, we slogged through the DWP’s internal “mandatory reconsideration” appeal stage, with help from her adviser. Here the rejection rate is 80%. Bone himself has called these reviews a complete waste of time.
Related: This is a disability assessment: intrusive, humiliating and completely pointless | Rob Crossan
After several months Bea’s appeal was looked at, and rejected out of hand. I want to thank the decision-maker who saw fit to nudge her up from a derisory zero points to an even more offensive one point. At this point it might be stating the obvious that there seems to be a PIP agenda against people with mental health difficulties, and it’s harming the most vulnerable. The government may be trumpeting how mental health needs to be invested in, but its core approach is fatally flawed. Why, for instance, is there no consideration for how anxiety disorders can be just as crippling for mobility as those requiring a walking stick?
I’ve asked Bea what she thinks. She tells me about the other people she’s met at the crisis house. How most of them are repeat visitors with an array of serious mental health conditions, and many can’t work. They’re considered ill enough by the local authorities and A&E to require supported living, but too well by the DWP to be in receipt of PIP.
She believes a lot of things could make a difference. Better-trained PIP staff would help: Bea’s assessor didn’t believe her claims, as she didn’t understand Bea’s condition. And changing some of the underlying DWP guidelines about mental illness would make a big difference, such as rolling back the recent PIP changes on mental health and the mobility component.
And of course, writing to your MP with your own experiences and difficulties: Bea had written to hers, on another government benefit called ESA, and they intervened. Our PIP complaint letter is up next. She also wanted me to write this article, despite the unwelcome attention it might bring her. I think she is very courageous.
There is another thing claimants can do: persevere. Some time after Bea’s second emphatic DWP rejection, we filed a motion to go to tribunal. Tribunals are independently assessed. They carefully read through the supporting medical notes, and they don’t have political agendas: most people who go on to appeal here win. The DWP doesn’t like to be made to look like an idiot so, lo and behold, with the full weight of a tribunal imminent, they finally had a thorough look through Bea’s case. I spoke to a DWP official on the phone who finally acknowledged my wife’s difficulties and offered an avalanche of points and an award of the daily-living component if we withdrew the appeal. I expressed my frustration at an utterly broken process. But at last Bea had her offer of PIP. That’s the difference perseverance can make.
The true measure of any civilised society is in how compassionately it treats its most vulnerable members. Judged by how PIP claimants such as Bea are being treated, ours is failing.
Posted by jeffrey davies] on 11 November 2017
================================
jeffs posts
On Thursday 9 November, a member of the BBC Question Time audience said claims that disabled people had died due to Conservative government policy was “inflammatory rubbish”. But it turns out that the man was not particularly unbiased. As he is a Tory councillor from Sussex. And he was also completely wrong.
“Inflammatory rubbish”? On Question Time?
Chris Stevens is a Conservative councillor from Horley on the Surrey/West Sussex border. As an audience member during the Question Time debate, he was responding to claims [9:25] by Guardian columnist Aditya Chakrabortty that Conservative government policy had sent “disabled people to their deaths”.
Stevens said that Chakrabortty was “like the Donald Trump of The Guardian“, and that his claims were “inflammatory rubbish”:
But there is a problem with Stevens’ claim it was “inflammatory rubbish” that sick and disabled people had died due to government policy. Because in reality, it is his own claim that is rubbish.
The government says…
One example of why Stevens’ claim is rubbish is a study by Oxford and Liverpool Universities. It found that an “additional” 590 people taking their own lives were linked to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Work Capability Assessment (WCA); as were 279,000 additional cases of mental health issues and 725,000 additional antidepressants prescriptions.
Also contrary to Stevens’ claim of “inflammatory rubbish”, are the government’s own figures [pdf, p8]. They show that between December 2011 and February 2014, 91 people a month died after being told by the DWP they were “fit-for-work”.
One such example is that of Lawrence Bond. As The Canary previously reported, Bond suffered a fatal heart attack shortly after leaving the Kentish Town Jobcentre on 12 December 2016. The 56-year-old had longstanding health problems such as difficulties with mobility and breathing. But the DWP had declared him “fit-for-work” six months earlier.
“Grave” and “systematic” human rights violations
Only in August, the Chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Theresia Degener, said the UK government had created a “human catastrophe” for disabled people, where society viewed them as “parasites, living on social benefits… and [living on] the taxes of other people”. It is unclear whether Councillor Stevens thinks the UN talks “inflammatory rubbish”.
But in a 10-minute BBC interview, which the broadcaster only aired 20 seconds of, Degener went further, saying [13:25] that the government had caused:
People [to be] pushed into work who were not fit for work… It is right to assume that disabled people are capable of working… But… you have to take into account the vulnerability of disabled people, especially if they have psychosocial disabilities or if they are intellectually disabled.
The UN’s August analysis was the fourth report in 14 months it had released into the Conservative government. All of them condemned its treatment of disabled people, saying it had committed “grave” and “systematic” violations of their human rights.
Get in the sea
But in Councillor Stevens’ world, this is all “inflammatory rubbish”. So he may like to tell that to the families of the thousands that have died since the Conservatives first came to power in 2010; and see if he gets the same rapturous applause he did from much of the Question Time audience
Posted by jeffrey davies on 10 November 2017
==============================
jeffs posts
enough is enough but not to these devils
38-year-old mother, Elaine Morrall died alone and cold while wearing a coat and a scarf indoors because she could not afford to pay for heating and had switched it off until her children got home from school. Elaine's family said that her benefits were stopped because she was too ill to attend a universal credit interview.
Elaine was vulnerable, as she suffered from an eating disorder and mental health problems. Her mother, Linda, said that she had no income but was expected to be able to pay full rent. Elaine was as told that being in intensive care was not sufficient reason for failing to attend a universal credit interview.
A fundraising campaign has been launched to raise money for her devastated four children. And Elaine’s mum has sent a scathing and “brokenhearted” letter to her local councillor in Halton.
In an open letter on Facebook, she wrote: “How many people have got to die before this government realises they are killing vulnerable people?”
Linda said: "My daughter lived in Boston Ave. She died on the afternoon of 2 November, 2017 at home on her own. She was 38yrs.
“In the cold with her coat & scarf on. Because she wouldn’t put her heating on until her kids came home from school. Why?? Because she couldn’t afford it.
“Because she was severely depressed. Suffered from eating disorder and many other problems for many years.
"Mainly due to authoritarians of one form or another. I can give you details. [...] was in out of hospital in recent months in intensive care."
“But was deemed not ill enough for ESA [Employment and Support allowance]. Had her benefits stopped numerous times, which in turn stopped her housing benefit.
“No income but expected to be able to pay full rent. Was told being in intensive care was not sufficient reason for failing to attend a universal credit interview.
“I went to the job centre to inform them that she couldn’t attend. But benefits [her]stopped again.
“Uncaring housing taking her to court. She’s due to go to court on Monday. Is being dead now enough reason? Is that what’s had to happen to prove she was ill?
“How many people have got to die before this government realises they are killing vulnerable people??
“What are you and your fellow councillors going to do to protect your constituents?”
Halton MP Derek Twigg , who is now working with the family, said: “It is a very tragic case and I am providing assistance to my constituent.”
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: “Our thoughts are with Ms Morrall’s family at this difficult time.
“We understand that people can’t always attend appointments, which is why we will re-arrange alternative times.
“Assessment decisions are made with consideration of all the information provided, including supporting evidence from a GP or medical specialist.
“Anyone who disagrees with a decision can appeal.”
Under the devastatingly tragic circumstances, the statement from the Department for Work and Pensions' statement is not only jarring and an unforgivable exercise in excuses and denial, it alo constitutes the most appalling political gaslighting technique, of monumental Orwellian proportions
If there was any truth in that statement at all, then Elaine would not be dead.
To add further insult to the Elaine's families' grief, Jonathan Horsfall, Halton Housing Trust debt recovery manager, said: “We always follow strict procedures around arrears."
“We strive to find solutions with our customers and have intensive support workers who enable us to do so where possible.
"Our support services are on offer to those who we know are in arrears, and are always reached out to for support.
“If customers are concerned about arrears we always encourage anyone to get in touch with us as early as possible in the arrears process so we can do all we can to help.”
Such statements are only plausible if they are taken completely out of the catastrophic circumstances they attempt to address. These superficial, bureaucratic and utterly meaningless statements issued from warm tidy little offices from cold officials are denials that are pre-formulated responses ultimately from an authoritarian government that has no intention of changing its draconian welfare policies, no matter how many more vulnerable citizens die as a consequence.
Elaine Morrall, who died alone and in the cold at home, too poor to put the heating on in the world's 6th most wealthiest nation. Government officials claim they offer "support" to vulnerable people such as Elaine, yet clearly, they dismally failed to support Elaine at all
Posted by jeffrey davies on 09 November 2017
==============================
jeffs posts
I've reblogged many articles and videos commemorating the people, who've died in hunger and misery thanks to the Tories' wretched welfare policies. There have been pieces by Johnny Void, Mike, Another Angry Voice, Stilloaks and many, many others, which have given the names of some of these victims and brief descriptions of the circumstances in which they died.
This is another of these videos. It was originally produced by Jack back on YouTube, and then reposted by Democratic Socialist, an Aussie YouTuber, who argues with various right-wing idiots about socialism and the nature of capitalism. And some of them are truly mind-boggling stupid. One British Conservative, who put up a video attacking a pro-socialist video, stated in his own that he didn't know, who Nye Bevin was. Democratic Socialist in his own critique of the Tory's video pointed out how ridiculous it was that he, an Australian, should have to point out to him that Nye Bevan was the founder of the British NHS.
The video begins with this quote from Theresa May
'We will make Britain a country that works not for the privileged few, but for everyone of us. That will be the mission of the government I lead, and together we will build a better Britain'.
This is then followed by the brief descriptions of some of the victims of the Tories' welfare reforms, which has seen seriously and even terminally ill women and men thrown off their benefits after being assessed as 'fit for work', first by ATOS and then by their successor, Maximus. It has also resulted in desperately poor people being sanctioned and denied benefits by the Jobcentre for the most trivial of reasons. Many of the people in the video died by their own hand, unable to bear the misery and starvation any more. Although they killed themselves, the ultimate responsibility for their deaths lies with Conservatives, who instituted the policies that created their desperate poverty.
The people listed in the video as having been killed by these murderous welfare policies, which Mike and others have rightly described as the genocide of the disabled, include
Neil Groves
Brian McArdle
Mark Wood
David Clapson
David Coupe
Linda Wootton
Stephanie Bottrill
Annette Francis
The video ends with the statement
'These are some of the people who got the media's attention. There are many more that didn't'.
Quite. The last thing I read, it was heading for around 700, though I can't remember the precise figure. And there are many more, who are keeping body and soul together only through food banks.
Enough's enough. The time's long past that this government should have been forced out. It's time an election was called and the Tories voted out of office before they murder any more of the poor, sick and disabled
Posted by jeffrey davies on 09 November 2017
===============================
Jeffs posts
Hard-line Blairite Remainers use sex scandal to target pro-Brexit MP Kelvin Hopkins
by Tom Pride
Hopkins' accuser deletes links to anti-Corbyn faction
A lot of people in the public eye - particularly journalists and politicians - seem to be afraid to say this at the moment for fear it could damage their career or their party.
But I'm not a journalist or a politician so I will.
It would be extremely naive indeed to think there aren't people cynical enough in politics to use the current appalling sex scandals engulfing Westminster for their own nefarious political ends.
Truth is never black and white. It is always complicated.
And so it is with the Westminster sexual harassment cases coming out at the moment.
Some of the accusations are appalling, particularly the accusations that serious crimes been covered up by both the Tory, Lib Dem and Labour leaderships. I hope in these cases the perpetrators are named and shamed and justice is served:
It was also absolutely right in my view to call out supposedly less serious behaviour by politicians - such as Labour MP Jared O'Mara's horrible homophobic and misogynist comments.
But it's becoming increasingly hard to differentiate between the very real and appalling cases being reported - including accusations of serious assault and rape - and cases which are simply attempts to smear political opponents under cover of the scandal.
Which brings me to the case of Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins.
But before I continue, a disclaimer.
I'm not a Corbynite or a Blairite. I'm not even a member of the Labour Party. I'm also an arch-Remainer, and was even before it became fashionable, so I have no axe to grind or political reasons whatsoever to support a Brexit campaigning MP.
But sometimes the truth needs to be told.
So here it is.
There was a lot of genuine head-scratching in and around Westminster when Hopkins - the 76-year old left-wing MP for Luton North - was accused of sexual harassment by a young Labour activist.
Unlike other MPs accused in the current sex scandals - where serial cases of similar behaviour are quite rightly offered as proof of guilt - during Hopkins' decades-long political career, there have been no other previous suspicions, gossip or accusations of this kind against him.
Quite the opposite in fact. Even some of Hopkins' opponents have been surprised by the allegations against him:
"As a former Conservative Chairman I was often in the presence of both Kelvin & Margaret Moran. She was hard and hostile to political opponents, whereas he would always say hello, chat, sometimes (at counts) about our respective campaigns, he was always full of cheer and thoroughly decent. I have always liked him and wished he was the Luton South MP as he lives near me, rather than Luton North.
I cannot believe these allegations. They don't make sense, and things that don't make sense usually aren't true. Last time I checked we still have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in this country, so let's stop this trial by media. Kelvin has my full support."
Of course, just because a case of harassment is a one-off complaint and seemingly out of character from previous behaviour, it doesn't necessarily mean the person accused is not-guilty.
But looking at the evidence, it seems clear to me that Brexit campaigning, pro-Corbyn Hopkins is the victim of a campaign to smear and discredit him by a small faction of hard-line Blairite Remainers, who know full-well it would take a brave person indeed in the current climate to defend him.
The problem is confounded by the fact that the gentlemanly Hopkins refuses to say anything that could be seen as an attempt to smear his accuser. Apart from an official statement released by Hopkins' solicitors, Hopkins' only comment so far when questioned about his accuser has been this:
"I have always wished and still do wish, Ava the very best of luck in pursuing the career in politics that she wants to follow. I am happy to fully cooperate with the Labour Party to bring to a swift conclusion the investigation that is now being carried out into my conduct." - Kelvin Hopkins MP
In my opinion, the only thing Hopkins is guilty of, is being too nice for today's politics.
Because looking at the details of the case, it's clear he is the victim of an attempt to cynically use the harassment scandal to smear him as a Corbyn and Brexit supporter, as well as an attempt to smear the Labour leader himself.
That's my opinion. Here's a summary of the evidence. Make your own mind up.
There are just two accusations against Hopkins from the same accuser. The first accusation was first made in 2015, soon after Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader. Hopkins was one of the few MPs who nominated Corbyn. The complaint related to a text message Hopkins had sent to his accuser, but contrary to some press reports it did not include the second more serious accusation that in 2014, Hopkins had rubbed himself against her. This more serious accusation only appeared in the last few days in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.
What we do know is that Hopkins was reprimanded by the then Labour whip Rosie Winterton (more about her later) for sending this text:
While this message might be considered to be inappropriate, it's not exactly the crime of the century. But there is something very odd about it. It is clearly in reply to a previous message or conversation. Hopkins' accuser - through her Daily Telegraph minders - has not responded to requests to reveal what communication the text is in reply to. And as mentioned before, Hopkins refuses to discuss anything connected with his accuser. Without any context, it's hard to judge just how inappropriate the message is. To me, it looks like he could be letting her down gently for some reason, but who knows?
The second only recently-made accusation - which contrary to press reports was not part of the original complaint that Hopkins was given a reprimand for - is that in 2014 Hopkins 'ground his groin' against his accuser while saying goodbye to her after a talk at her university. This allegation is completely refuted by Hopkins:
"I absolutely and categorically deny that I in any way engaged in any such inappropriate conduct. I simply put an arm around her shoulder to give her a brief, slight hug just before getting in to my car. I did not hold her tight. I did not rub any part of my body, let alone my crotch, against Ava. She waved me off as I drove away and did not say anything whatsoever to suggest that anything had occurred that upset her let alone revolted her."
But the real problem with this new accusation is that when it was alleged to have taken place doesn't make any sense at all in the timeline of known messages.
On the 12.11.2014 after an Essex University talk, the alleged groin grind was supposed to have taken place.
But later that same evening, after the alleged event, Hopkins' accuser sent this text to him:
‘Thank you so much Kelvin for coming tonight!! We had a fantastic time. My members loved you! You’re a star! x Ava.’
And just a month later, on the 15.12.2014 Hopkins received this message from his accuser:
‘Hi Kelvin, how are you? Could you please send me your post address? I’d like to send you a Christmas card. x Ava.’
In 2016, Hopkins' accuser also contacted the MP to enquire about getting a job in Westminster. After a 'friendly' conversation, Hopkins told her he had no vacancies.
It was only after all of this that the groin grind complaint was made to the Daily Telegraph.
When looked at closely, the allegations look very odd and weak indeed.
But why would anyone bother to accuse Hopkins in the first place? This is where it gets very interesting.
Understanding this means we have to go into the very complex - and extremely boring - machinations relating to the bitter fight for control of the Labour Party National Executive Committee between a Corbynite faction and a Blairite faction at the top of the party. The NEC is very important because it can decide everything - from who can stand as leader to how party policy is made.
Fortunately, we know the identity of many of the core members of the two opposing groups because in March 2016, a document was leaked to the press showing which Labour MPs belong to which faction:
Leaked list ranks Labour MPs by “hostility” to Corbyn
According to the leaked list, Hopkins is one of just 18 MPs belonging to the 'core group' of Corbyn supporters.
And in the much longer list of MPs belonging to the opposing anti-Corbyn Blairite faction are Michael Dugher, Gareth Thomas and Rosie Winterton - none other than the very same Labour whip who reprimanded Hopkins.
In recent days, it seems attempts have been made to hide connections between Hopkins' accuser and leading members of the Blairite faction.
For example, her Linked in page has been recently deleted.
Fortunately, there are screen shots of the deleted Link in page, which showed she has worked as an intern for Blairite faction leader Michael Dugher:
And the Linked in page also showed she worked on Blairite faction MP Gareth Thomas' re-election campaign:
Amazingly, Hopkins' accuser was also directly involved in one of the dirtiest battles between Hopkins' faction and the Blairites over seats on the NEC - the disputed dirty tricks election of Blairite Jasmine Beckett to the NEC in June 2016:
For some strange reason, her Twitter handle has also been changed from @avablair0890 to one which no longer includes the word 'blair'.
You don't have to be a detective to understand why it would serve the case against Hopkins much better if these connections were kept hidden. Why is information relevant to the case being deleted and hidden from the public eye?
It seems I'm not the only person to have serious doubts about the Hopkins accusations. Some of the MP's constituents have started a Facebook group campaigning for his innocence.
Sadly, I'm told Hopkins is "totally broken" over the accusations.
.
What do you think? As I said above, the truth is never black and white and is always complicated. Please feel free to comment below.
.
Here's a timeline of relevant events:
July 2013 - Aug 2013 Hopkins' accuser had internship with Gavin Shuker MP (Luton south).... Progress
June 2014 - Aug 2014 Hopkins' accuser had internship with Michael Dugher MP ... Labour First
Sept. 2014 meets Hopkins at supper with Gavin Shuker and others ... Manchester LP conference
Oct 2014 Canvassing in Clacton
12.11.2014 Essex University talk and alleged groin grind
15.12.2014 Hopkins' accuser asks for Hopkins' address for a christmas card
2.02.2015 Hopkins' accuser had lunch with Hopkins at HoC
16.02.2015 Hopkins sent the text.
08.05.2015 Cameron won majority and Ed Miliband resigned.
June 2015 Jeremy Corbyn was nominated by Hopkins and co
Sept. 2015 Jeremy Corbyn elected
Dec. 2015 Syria vote and 67 PLP rebelled ... Michael Dugher being a prominent and outspoken critic of Corbyn
Dec 2015 Hopkins' accuser made a complaint about the text to Labour Whips office. Hopkins given a warning from Blairite Rosie Winterton
05.01.2016 Michael Dugher sacked from shadow cabinet by Corbyn.
20.02.2016 Cameron announces EU referendum. Hopkins begins campaigning for leaving.
29.02.2016 Jasmine Beckett elected to NEC as youth delegate in disputed contest .... narrow win of 1 vote + anti-semitism smears against Left wing candidate. Hopkins' accuser boasts of success in getting Jasmine elected.
28.04.2016 Naz Shah suspended for anti-semitism. John Mann et al on BBC attacking Ken Livingstone and saying that he shouldn’t be on NEC. Livingstone removed from NEC.
22.06.2016 nominations for NEC constituency delegates excluding Ken Livingstone. Attempt by Jim Murphy to prevent Rhea Wolfson from standing.
23.06.2016 EU Referendum. Hopkins supports Brexit campaign.
25.06.2016 Hilary Benn sacked, start of PLP coup and second leadership campaign.
End of June, Hopkins appointed to Corbyn's shadow cabinet
Attempt to stop Corbyn standing … narrowly voted against by NEC after court cases. Purge, suspensions and exclusion of LP members during second leadership contest with Owen Smith.
End of September, Corbyn re-elected. Hopkins steps down from shadow cabinet because he wanted to be free to vote as a backbencher.
Sometime in Autumn 2016, Hopkins' accuser contacts Hopkins for advice and help finding a job in parliament.
May 2017 - June 2017 Hopkins' accuser works on Blairite MP Gareth Thomas' re-election campaign
08.06.2017 May loses majority in HoC. To dismay of LPHQ and right wing Labour MPs Corbyn wins biggest % vote for Labour since 1945. Michael Dugher steps down from Parliament.
29.06.2017 50+ Labour MPs rebel and vote for UK to stay in single market.
From then to date, increasing campaign for second referendum and overturning Brexit from prominent right wingers. Hopkins' accuser is ardent remainer.
01.11.2017 Announcement that NEC is to take control of Young Labour Youth Rep elections and introduce OMOV. Thus removing Blairite faction's control, making re-election of Jasmine Beckett unlikely and increasing likelihood of another Corbyn supporter on NEC.
02.11.2017 Hopkins' accuser gives interview to Telegraph making new allegations of groin grinding previously not mentioned. ..
Posted by jeffrey davies on 08 November 2017
=========================
jeffs posts
Seven months after it lost a personal independence payment (PIP) court case, the DWP has begun searching for claimants who should be getting a higher award. But many claimants, especially those who previously received no award, are likely to miss out.
Safety and supervision
Back in March 2017 the DWP lost a vital upper tribunal case relating to safety and supervision.
Until then, the DWP had argued that a claimant could only score points for being unsafe if harm was likely to occur on more than 50% of the occasions on which they attempted an activity.
A claimant who has epilepsy which causes seizures once or twice a week, for example, may not attempt to cook unsupervised because they know that if they have a seizure they could come to serious harm.
However, the DWP had been refusing to award points to claimants with epilepsy on these grounds, unless the claimant could show that it is ‘more likely than not’ that they would have a seizure on any given occasion when they prepare food.
This is an almost impossibly harsh test, as is shown by the thousands of claimants with epilepsy who have had their payments removed entirely on being moved from DLA to PIP.
Upper tribunal
However, in March a panel of upper tribunal judges held that the decision maker should look at whether there is a real possibility that harm might occur and also at how great the harm might be. The greater the potential harm, the less likely it needs to be that it would happen on any specific occasion.
For example, someone who is deaf may be unable to hear a smoke alarm if a fire starts when they are bathing.
The risk of a fire starting on any given occasion is very small, but also very real. And the harm that might occur if the claimant was caught in the bathroom during a fire is potentially fatal. So, the risk is small but the potential harm is very great. Therefore the claimant cannot carry out the activity of washing and bathing safely unless they have supervision.
The same logic also applies to people who have epileptic seizures and need someone to keep them safe if they do.
The panel also ruled that where a claimant is at risk all the time, even if they are just sitting in a chair doing nothing, then they may also be at risk when carrying out PIP activities that do not carry any additional likelihood of harm.
So, a claimant may not be at any additional risk of harm if they have a seizure when using the toilet or taking medication, for example. But, because they are at risk whatever they are doing, then we would argue that they still reasonably require supervision during these activities because they cannot do them safely without supervision.
Seven month delay
Benefits and Work updated our PIP guide within a few weeks of the upper tribunal making their decision.
It has taken the DWP a shameful seven months to update their guidance to health professionals.
In a written statement last week, Penny Mordaunt, minister for disabled people, told the Commons:
“The updated guidance will reflect binding case law following an Upper Tribunal judgment handed down on 9th March 2017 on how DWP considers a claimant to be carrying out an activity safely and whether they need supervision to do so. This will increase entitlement for a number of both new and existing claimants, largely those with conditions such as epilepsy, which affect consciousness. The Department estimates approximately 10,000 claims will benefit by £70 - £90 per week in 2022/2023.”
Benefits and Work believes that the decision should benefit not just claimants with epilepsy, but also a wide range of other conditions such as learning difficulties, dementia, heart problems or mental health conditions.
So, someone at risk of serious self-harm or at risk of committing suicide might well qualify for the enhanced rate of the daily living component, if they need someone to supervise them to keep them safe.
Someone with learning difficulties which leads to a lack of awareness of danger may also qualify.
Whether the DWP will take the same view remains to be seen.
Backdating awards
Mordaunt went on to say that the DWP will be looking at existing cases to identify claimants who have missed out as a result of their failure to apply the law correctly, in order to make a backdated award:
“In the case of existing claimants the Department for Work and Pensions will undertake an exercise to go through all existing cases and identify anyone who may be entitled to more. We will then write to those people affected and all payments will be backdated to the date of the change in case law.”
However, few claimants would trust the DWP to identify all those who should receive a higher award and it would definitely be worth getting advice if you believe your case should be looked at again, especially as the DWP seem to be focussing almost exclusively on claimants with epilepsy.
If you did not receive any award of PIP at all, even though you are likely to have qualified on safety grounds, it does not appear that the DWP intend to look at your case again. You may wish to consider making a fresh claim in these circumstances.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 08 November 2017
