Standard and We're-all-Poor

A few days ago, it emerged that Standard Chartered Bank had been accused of money laundering as much as $252 Billion - £161 Billion - for Iran over 10 years

Whilst Standard Chartered have denied the accusations, the New York State Department of Financial Services described Standard Chartered as a "rogue institution".

Another one eh?

Whatever the truth, my mind has been boggling ever since I heard about the story. £162 Billion!!! Do any of us have any idea at all how much money that is?

It is the same as the entire GDP of New Zealand or Qatar
It would buy 995,000 averagely priced homes in the UK - Very roughly, that is the number of homes in LA!
It's like winning the UK lottery 32,400 times over!

It is £16.2 Billion a year!
It is £1.35 Billion a month!!
It is £318 Million a week!!!
It is £45 million pounds a DAY!!!!
It is £1.89 Million pounds an HOUR!!!!!
And finally, it is £31,500 a MINUTE!!!!!!

£162 Billion is £162,000,000,000!!!!! That's a LOT of noughts.

Whatever the truth in the allegations, this is a lot of money. It is so much money, most of us can't even begin to imagine it. And that's what politicians rely on. Quietly, while the Olympics were in full flow, while Team GB filled us with national pride and joy, yet another bank mumbled about cheating and billions and we all thought "Oh, that's a lot of money" then went back to cheering and flag waving.

Well it's a LOT of money, it's an eye-wateringly inconceivable amount of money. If you counted to just 1 billion now, counting non-stop, at one number a second, it would take you 31 years, 251 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes, and 39 seconds. Counting to 162 Billion would take around 5145 years.

These banks were just one big casino, and they weren't very good gamblers. Next time a statement tells you a bank lost some billions, please think about how much money it is. About how it was YOUR money, about the cut in your child benefit or tax credits, the school or hospital that just closed down or how much petrol prices or utility bills have gone up.

Banks have no money at all without people like you and me. Whether it is the £10 a month you save for your daughter's wedding, or the profit from companies relying on ordinary shoppers like you - it is YOUR money.

They took it and they borrowed against it and they hid it and they multiplied it and they laundered it and they gambled it and in the end, they lost it.

Please, please, please, be a bit more shocked.





,

Atos the Triumphant!!

What do you do with a company failing 1.9 million sick and disabled people?

Give them a few million more.

In this Alice-in-Wonderland-Meets-the-Excorcist cameo that is this coalition's approach to government-by-private-company, yet another -Atos Healthcare - has been rewarded for abject failure.

Atos Healthcare, the private company failing millions with its assessments of the most vulnerable, (remember them?) apparently unable to distinguish between a scrounger with 756 children and a terminally ill cancer patient, have just won a large slice of  the DLA to PIP contracts. So failing sickness benefit claimants is not enough - we MUST allow them to fail sick and disabled people claiming Disability Living Allowance too http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2012/aug/03/pip-atos-capita-dwp-disability?newsfeed=true

Despite getting decisions wrong at least 40% of the time, this government of out-of-touch millionaires seem to find this an acceptable margin of error. So they want them to fail a few million more. The LibDems are fine with this. Only Lords reform raises their temperatures.

Don't just sit there and shrug, these are people already dealt the hardest of blows, or don't you care? Are you just glad it isn't you? It's fine for people who can't speak or walk or eat to lose everything as long as your weekly Sainsbury's shop is safe, yes?

So, take a bow, Atos Healthcare, and join the ranks of profit monkeys, creaming their luxury lifestyles from YOU:

A4E

G4S

Castlebeck

Atos Healthcare

Standard Chartered

.....oh what's the point.

What is the Overall Impact of Cuts to Disabled People?

This is a piece I wrote for Occupied Times, and they have kindly said I can re-produce it here :


"To do his schoolwork, the bare minimum Johnny needs is: paper, a pen, a teacher, a school, a chair to sit on, a desk to sit at, and a packed lunch.

If you take away just Johnny’s lunch, he will go hungry. It would be almost impossible for him to concentrate and do well in school. However, in theory, he could still do schoolwork.

If you just took away his desk, it would make it tricky to write, but Johnny could still do his schoolwork. It would just take longer and be less neat.

If you just took away his teacher, he could, in theory, go to libraries and museums to learn. In theory. Hypothetically, it’s still possible that he could teach himself something, so he could still do his schoolwork.

If you take away his paper and pen and school all at once, he can still sit on the floor and use chalk to write on the ground.

But if you take away Johnny’s paper, pen, teacher, school, chair, desk and lunch, all at once, Johnny is sitting on some ground with nothing, hungry, without a roof over his head. It’s hard to learn anything at all sitting alone, on the ground, with nothing but a piece of chalk.

Now imagine you have a disability or a long-term chronic illness. To manage it with a degree of dignity, you need a carer, a roof over your head, a bed, heating, food and transport. You rely on the carer, who comes in twice a day from social services, because she helps you to get up and get dressed and washed. Without her, you would have to spend all day, every day in bed. But at least you still have a bed.

Or maybe you rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over your head. You are forced to move to a smaller property on the 5th floor of a tower block when your housing benefit is cut. The lift doesn’t work. It means you have to move away from family and friends who help you out whenever they can. They cook meals perhaps, or help with all those jobs around the house you just can’t do.

But at least you still have somewhere to live.

Or maybe you rely on Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for transport. It means you can get a taxi to the hairdresser or social club. Without it, you would become isolated. It would be impossible to get to your GP or make hospital appointments.

But, in theory at least, you don’t actually need to go anywhere.

If, however, you cut Disability Living Allowance, housing benefits, social care, hospital budgets, the Independent Living Fund, Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), income support and the Social Fund, then you are just lying in a bed, hungry and isolated, a prisoner in someone else’s home.

Governments must perform what is called an “impact assessment” on any new policy or law. This government has done the bare minimum to fulfil this commitment. Would it surprise you to know, for instance, that when considering the greatest cuts to disability support in living memory, they claim that they will have no impact on health, no impact on well-being, no impact on human rights, and no impact on the justice system?

The crucial flaw is that they have independently assessed each cut to the services disabled people rely on, as if it existed in a vacuum.

The government has refused to do an overall impact assessment. They have repeatedly refused to assess what the combined impact of their cuts will be. First they said it would be too expensive, then they said it would be too difficult!

Why might it be too difficult? Because they know, as we know, that, metaphorically speaking, the result will be little Johnny sitting on the floor with nothing but a piece of chalk, hungry, without a roof over his head.

The combined impact of removing someone’s DLA so they can no longer afford care or transport, heating or food, cutting their ESA so that they must look for work with cancer or multiple sclerosis, cutting their local care support so that they cannot clean themselves or feed themselves, cutting their housing support so that they risk homelessness and, to cap it all, scrapping the Social Fund so that there is no safety net when all else fails, is a strategy so risky that it ought to be criminalised.

We call upon the government to immediately carry out an overall impact assessment of all the cuts to the support that sick and disabled people rely on to live. I’ll say it again – to live. And they must do it now, before it’s too late. Because it’s hard to survive, sitting in the dirt with nothing but a piece of chalk."

Breaking News : Possible New WCA Descriptors

As most of you probably know, the big problem with Work Capability Assessments are the descriptors. 

However bad Atos might be at customer service, they did not write the 17 descriptors that decide whether or not you will be found eligible for Employment and Support Allowance, the replacement for Incapacity Benefit. 

The DWP did.

Atos might have designed a computer programme as a framework for these descriptors, but they didn't write them. 

The DWP did.

Atos might be asked to carry out an assessment, but they don't decide if you are fit for work or not. 

The DWP do. 

What does this mean? Well, it means that the Government wrote criteria that were so tough, so detached from reality, so blatantly designed to ensure that seriously ill or disabled people failed, it didn't matter who did the assessments - Atos or Coco the Clown - the results would be the same. (Some might argue the two examples are the same....)

The descriptors we use today,http://www.tameside.gov.uk/esa/wca mean that those with fluctuating conditions, mental health or learning disabilities find it almost impossible to be accurately assessed. As these are the conditions increasing around the world, a cynic might argue that it was entirely intentional. Please do take a moment to look at the descriptors used currently. 

A week or so ago, we were sent a new set of descriptors anonymously that seemed to be significant improvement. We didn't know who had written them or whether there was any realistic chance that they would ever be used. 

As you can see from the guest post on out blogs, It turns out that these were the descriptors suggested by the mental health charities, learning disabilites charities and charities representing those with fluctuating conditions. 

We felt that it was only fair that you be given the chance to decide for yourselves what you think of the new descriptors. We are told that they may have changed over the last few weeks but that broadly, these are the descriptors that the DWP now say that they will test independently and fairly. 

We also felt, once we had seen them, that Mind and other charities had made the correct decision to work with the DWP rather than walking way and leaving the testing to be done by the DWP alone, without any input from sick or disabled people. 

We can only hope that these descriptors ARE closer to a model that will be used in the future as any improvement can only mean that millions of people currently undergoing an unfair and distressing process are more fairly treated. 

As Mind have pointed out, these new descriptors are far from perfect, but those currently used are unfit for purpose and will never provide a fair and balanced outcome. 

From, Sue and Kaliya 

PART 1

1. Mobilising

a. The claimant cannot reliably, repeatedly and safely, within a reasonable amount of time mobilise:

• Over at least 100m [or suitable alternative distances to attract lower points]
• On a variety of terrains, including steps and uneven as well as level ground
• Through a variety of working spaces, including negotiating doors and other entrances and exits
• To and from the workplace, and relevant work-related commitments, with some prior planning and adjustments
• Without significant discomfort, breathlessness or fatigue

b. This is the case:

i. More than 75% of the time

ii. Between 50% and 75% of the time

iii. Between 20% and 50% of the time

2. Standing and sitting

a. Cannot reliably, repeatedly and safely, using any aid that it is reasonable to expect them to use:

i. Move between one seated position and another seated position located next to one another without receiving physical assistance from another person.

ii. Remain at a work station, either:

a. Standing unassisted by another person (even if free to move around) or;

b. Sitting (even in an adjustable chair) for more than 30 minutes without significant discomfort, loss of balance or exhaustion

iii. Remain at a work station; either:

a. Standing unassisted by another person (even if free to move around) or;

b. Sitting (even in an adjustable chair) for more than an hour without significant discomfort, loss of balance or exhaustion.

b. This is the case

i. More than 75% of the time

ii. Between 50% and 75% of the time

iii. Between 20% and 50% of the time

3. Reaching, picking up and moving

a. Due to difficulties with or restricted movement of upper body (arms, shoulders, back, neck) and/or lower body (hips, knees, ankles), cannot repeatedly, reliably and safely, without significant discomfort or exhaustion, from standing or sitting:

i. Reach up, down (i.e. through bending, kneeling or squatting) and sideways a reasonable distance

ii. Pick up and move a range of differently-sized objects up to 0.5kg

iii. Either reach up, down or sideways a reasonable distance; or reach and pick up and move a range of differently-sized objects up to 0.5kg

b.

i. with either hand

ii. with dominant hand

iii. with both hands

c. This is the case;

i. More than 75% of the time

ii. Between 50% and 75% of the time

iii. Between 20% and 50% of the time

4. Manual dexterity/ hand movement

a. Cannot reliably, repeatedly and safely, within a reasonable amount of time and without significant discomfort:

i. Grip and turn a door handle, tap and/or piece of equipment (such as a dial on a radio)

ii. Create a legible message or draw a diagram through the use of a pen or pencil

iii. Use a suitable keyboard or mouse

iv. Turn the pages of a book

v. Pick up and move a £1 coin (so as to put it into a slot in a machine/ box)

vi. Repeatedly press buttons, such as to dial a number on a telephone keypad

vii. Twist a lid or cap so as to open a jar or bottle.

viii. Carry out fine motor/ finger movement, such as to do up a button or tie a knot

b. To the extent that this is, without significant discomfort;

i. Impossible

ii. Very difficult

iii. Difficult

c. This is the case:

i. More than 75% of the time

ii. between 50% and 75% of the time

iii. between 25% and 50% of the time

5. Bladder/ bowel continence

a. Experiences unpredictable or recurrent loss of control leading to voiding of the bladder, extensive evacuation of the bowel or substantial leakage of the contents of a collecting device sufficient to require cleaning and a change of clothing and/or incontinence pads   Or

b. Without immediate access# to a toilet, suitably modified where appropriate, would experience loss of control leading to voiding of the bladder, extensive evacuation of the bowel or substantial leakage of a collecting device sufficient to require cleaning and a change of clothing and/or incontinence pads;

c. Experiences significant discomfort due to the need to evacuate the bladder or bowel or risks losing control if not able quickly to reach a toilet, suitably modified where appropriate

And

c. This is the case:

i. Most of the time (more than 75%)

ii. Some of the time (between 50% and 75%)

iii. Occasionally (between 20% and 50%) PART 2

6. Learning Tasks

a. Is able to learn processes necessary to get a job and undertake tasks within it

b. Can learn tasks relevant to getting a job and to working;

i. with verbal or written instructions

ii. with guided practice

iii. Cannot even learn all necessary tasks

c. No longer requires support to repeat the task after;

i. one day

ii. one week

iii. one month

iv. Three months or more

7. Awareness of Hazards

a. Is fully aware of potential hazards

b. Without help and/or adjustments, risk(s) of injury to self or others, or of damage to property or possessions is likely to be;

i. Moderate

ii. Substantial

iii. Very substantial

c. The risks above are likely to arise;

i. Occasionally

ii. Frequently

iii. More often than not

8. Maintaining Focus

a. Is able to maintain focus without difficulty

b. Due to poor memory or concentration, needs help and/or adjustments in

maintaining focus on;

i. Some tasks

ii. Most tasks

iii. All tasks

c. When working on the tasks concerned for;

i. Most of the day

ii. A few hours

iii. An hour or less

d. Needs help and/or adjustments for this;

i. Occasionally

ii. Frequently

iii. More often than not

9. Executing Tasks

a. Has no difficulty executing even complex tasks

b. Needs additional time to complete;

i. Some tasks

ii. Most tasks

iii. All tasks

c. Such that the task would take;

i. A little longer

ii. Substantially longer

iii. Much longer

d. This is an issue;

i. Occasionally

ii. Frequently

iii. More often than not

10. Managing Self and Schedule

a. Has no difficulties managing him/herself and his/her schedule

b. Because of difficulties in motivation or organisation, or distress, can only manage self and schedule to an acceptable standard with;

i. Some help and/or adjustments

ii. Substantial help and/or adjustments

iii. Cannot manage at all

c. For;

i. Short periods

ii. Much of the day

iii. All day

d. Needs help and/or adjustments for this;

i. Occasionally

ii. Frequently

iii. More often than not

11. Coping with Change

a. Able to cope with minor planned changes to daily routine

b. Can only cope with minor planned changes to daily routine with;

i. Some help and/or adjustments

ii. Substantial help and/or adjustments

iii. Cannot cope at all

or

Can only cope with minor unplanned changes to daily routine with;

i. Some help and/or adjustments

ii. Substantial help and/or adjustments

iii. Cannot cope at all

c. Needs help and/or adjustments for this;

i. Occasionally

ii. Frequently

iii. More often than not

12. Getting About

a. Able to get to familiar places

b. Because of distress or disorientation, can only get to familiar places with;

i. Some help and/or adjustments

ii. Substantial help and/or adjustments

iii. Cannot make journeys at all

or

Because of distress or disorientation, can only get to unfamiliar places with;

i. Some help and/or adjustments

ii. Substantial help and/or adjustments

iii. Cannot make journeys at all

c. Needs help and/or adjustments for this;

i. Occasionally

ii. Frequently

iii. More often than not

13. Social Engagement

a. Is able to interact with people and engage socially

b. Because of difficulties interacting with others, anxiety, distress or other emotions, can only engage socially with;

i. Some help and/or adjustments

ii. Substantial help and/or adjustments

iii. Cannot engage socially at all

c. Difficulties in interaction and engagement occur with people

i. Unknown to the person

ii. Known to the person

iii. Familiar to the person

d. Needs help and/or adjustments for this;

i. Occasionally

ii. Frequently

iii. More often than not

14. Appropriateness of Behaviour

a. Does not display behaviour which work colleagues would consider inappropriate

b. May display physically aggressive, verbally aggressive or socially inappropriate behaviour unless he/she has;

i. Some help and/or adjustments

ii. Substantial help and/or adjustments

iii. Behaviour not amenable to help or support

c. The nature of this behaviour tends to be;

i. Mild

ii. Moderate

iii. Severe

d. Needs help and/or adjustments for this;

i. Occasionally

ii. Frequently

iii. More often than not

15. Communicating with Others

a. Has no difficulties with communication or social understanding

b. In order to communicate and to show social understanding, needs;

i. Some help and/or adjustments

ii. Substantial help and/or adjustments

iii. Communication is not amenable to help or support

c. Needs help and/or adjustments during;

i. Some communication

ii. Most communication

iii. All communication

d. Needs help and/or adjustments for this;

i. Occasionally

ii. Frequently

iii. More often than not

Guest Post from Mind

Sue and Kaliya have kindly agreed to host this blog on their sites, as I was keen to communicate with as wide an audience as possible about the work Mind is currently involved in around the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). I’m sorry about the length of the blog, but there’s lots of background to cover!

18 months ago, Mind, working with Mencap and the National Autistic Society, submitted a report to Professor Harrington, the independent reviewer of the WCA, about changes we wanted to see to the criteria used in the WCA. Harrington had asked us to produce this report after recognising that the assessment was not working well enough for people these organisations represent.

Translating our concerns with the system into specific proposals was not an easy task. Based on what we had been told by the people we represent, we identified two key aspects of the ‘descriptors’, used to score applicants, that we believed needed changing:

·         We didn’t feel the descriptors really took account of the fluctuation and variability inherent to many of these conditions and we wanted to make sure that our descriptors could collect this information.

·         We wanted assessors to be able to ask applicants directly about the areas covered in the assessment rather than trying to select the appropriate descriptor based on tangential questions.

We made an attempt to address these issues in the proposals we produced, looking at models of fluctuation used in the equivalent Australian assessment. But we recognised that our descriptors were not perfect and didn’t address some of the fundamental issues with the WCA, such as what ‘work’ and ‘fitness for work’ actually mean.

After refining our proposals through consultation with other groups and collaboration with a ‘scrutiny panel’ of health experts convened by Harrington, they were submitted to the DWP. The Department responded that the proposals were too radical and not backed up with sufficient evidence.

Meanwhile, at Harrington’s request, another group of charities (MS Society, National AIDS Trust, Parkinsons UK, Forward ME, Arthritis Care, and Crohn’s and Colitis UK) were submitting proposals for how the descriptors could better address the type of fluctuating conditions they focus on. This report built on our descriptor proposals and made more general recommendations for improving the assessment.

They received a similar response to us from the DWP and the whole endeavour might have been dead in the water at that point, were it not for Harrington arguing that the DWP should carry out some testing on the proposals. This suggestion was accepted in principle but in the ensuing months there was no real activity.

Then, about 6 weeks ago, the charities involved were invited to the DWP to discuss how the testing would proceed. We were told there was Ministerial commitment to the project, resources allocated to make it happen, and a tight timetable to work to.

This turn of events provoked mixed feelings: it would be the first time that the current descriptors had been properly tested, with the outcomes they suggest compared to the view of an expert panel on whether the applicant was actually fit for work. It would also be a good opportunity to test out some of our ideas for improving the descriptors. But we were wary of the project being driven by the DWP, with Mind’s name attached to it, and the possibility that we wouldn’t be comfortable with how the testing was designed or carried out.

Overall though, we felt it was too good an opportunity to turn down and since then we have been involved in intense and long meetings with the DWP and the other charities involved to try and finalise a common set of proposals that can be tested.

Mind knows this is fairly unique opportunity and we are acutely aware that the circumstances aren’t ideal: our proposals were suggested reforms to problems with the current assessment, not a perfect alternative; we are not experts in producing assessments; we are not in control of the design and timeline of the project; and there are many people not round the table who could make important contributions. However, it is clear that the DWP will go ahead with or without us and so we feel that it is important to try and make the process as rigorous and constructive as possible.

It’s been a hectic few weeks, but we want to make sure we find the time to keep the process as open as possible to disabled people and the disability sector. We’re pushing to relax the timetable to make more time for consultation but we’d welcome any comments or questions that people have at any point in the process.

Tom Pollard – Senior Policy & Campaigns Officer, Mind

This blog represents the views and experience of Mind, not necessarily those of other charities involved in this process

Who is to "blame" for the WCA?

Earlier today, my friend wrote a blog post over on http://allbigideas.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/in-defence-of-atos.html

I left the following comment and asked her if I could cross post it here :

"So who is "to blame" for Work Capability Assessments? 

Well, blame is an emotional issue and a strategic one.

Of COURSE Atos are to blame. Emotionally, they have caused untold harm. By working with the government, of course they have been to blame. They are to blame for carrying out flawed assessments, for providing a target culture amongst their staff, for callous customer service, for not speaking out when it was clear the system was failing, for not being transparent, for not having stringent enough criteria in employing HCPs - they're to blame for all of that and more. Of course they are and no-one would argue in any way that they aren't

But today, in 2012, who is to blame for the WCA? Who is to blame for the descriptors? Who refuses to change them. Who often hold Atos back from making the changes we need to see? For there being too few recorders in centres, for many remaining inaccessible? Who has the power to change it, that's the point. Contracturally, who can change it and who can only follow?

The DWP. Politicians. And they work for us. They are employed by us. And they employ Atos. In our name.

Blame is emotional and it comes in many forms. But only the DWP can change the WCA.

That's politics."