ATOS - leaked report shows "DWP is holding Atos to extremely tight tolerances"

I've been reading the fourth review of work capability assessment by Paul Litchfield, out this month and accessible via the NAS webpages.

Its not just the big issues about whether GP and other medical evidence is taken up, or the way persons accompanying applicants are being kept out of it, the whole process is incredibly mean and dehumanising.

Why we need human DWP staff to manage it perplexes me, computers could do just as good a job on their own.

Litchfield obviously has to be gentle in his comments, as it is clear from the acknowledgements he depends greatly on the cooperation of DWP staff. But even gently written descriptions of what goes on doesn't hide the appalling lack of humanity or of respect for human dignity shown by DWP staff.

The way the computer sits between interviewer and interviewee, and the confrontational approach used.

The fact that they use drop down phrases and sentences to fit what they think they are being told, because they are too lazy to write down what interviewees are saying.

That often what they write down bears no relation to what they are being told, and interviewees aren't allowed to see what is being written about them.

That the interviewers' preconceived notions and prejudices influence the assessment more than what the interviewees try to convey. Why bother with the interviews?

That while the decision process is unecessarily long and overly complex, during decision phases applicants lose benefit, and are often left in dire financial straits, with no consideration given to them at all.

That interpretation of the evidence is so arbitrary and crude, why not just let a computer do it?

There are two levels of processing if people are referred to work or WRAG - the uncomplicated ones are handled with germanic efficiency, just skeletal procedures with no input of intelligence or compassion required - again why not just use a computer?

The more complex cases are treated very little better.

I realise Litchfield has to be delicate and fair to DWP staff.

But this report is a clear indictment of the unfeeling, inhuman, selfish lazy character of DWP staff. They clearly come over, beneath the veneer of nicety, as the lowest forms of human life.

And why cannot Government Civil Servants show the same "toughness" with all the fat cats.......? ........maybe because they hope to rise to the ranks of top civil service fat cats themselves one day?

The pretended objectives of this rethink - making it possible for those disabled to work and be self sufficient where they can, is commendable. But that would take considerable change in the work culture and the way disabled people are treated in the work place.

But the actual implementation of this reform is an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE, and demonstrates we are governed by the vilest crud imagineable.

I've been reading the fourth review of work capability assessment by Paul Litchfield, out this month and accessible via the NAS webpages.

Its not just the big issues about whether GP and other medical evidence is taken up, or the way persons accompanying applicants are being kept out of it, the whole process is incredibly mean and dehumanising.

Why we need human DWP staff to manage it perplexes me, computers could do just as good a job on their own.

Litchfield obviously has to be gentle in his comments, as it is clear from the acknowledgements he depends greatly on the cooperation of DWP staff. But even gently written descriptions of what goes on doesn't hide the appalling lack of humanity or of respect for human dignity shown by DWP staff.

The way the computer sits between interviewer and interviewee, and the confrontational approach used.

The fact that they use drop down phrases and sentences to fit what they think they are being told, because they are too lazy to write down what interviewees are saying.

That often what they write down bears no relation to what they are being told, and interviewees aren't allowed to see what is being written about them.

That the interviewers' preconceived notions and prejudices influence the assessment more than what the interviewees try to convey. Why bother with the interviews?

That while the decision process is unecessarily long and overly complex, during decision phases applicants lose benefit, and are often left in dire financial straits, with no consideration given to them at all.

That interpretation of the evidence is so arbitrary and crude, why not just let a computer do it?

There are two levels of processing if people are referred to work or WRAG - the uncomplicated ones are handled with germanic efficiency, just skeletal procedures with no input of intelligence or compassion required - again why not just use a computer?

The more complex cases are treated very little better.

I realise Litchfield has to be delicate and fair to DWP staff.

But this report is a clear indictment of the unfeeling, inhuman, selfish lazy character of DWP staff. They clearly come over, beneath the veneer of nicety, as the lowest forms of human life.

And why cannot Government Civil Servants show the same "toughness" with all the fat cats.......? ........maybe because they hope to rise to the ranks of top civil service fat cats themselves one day?

The pretended objectives of this rethink - making it possible for those disabled to work and be self sufficient where they can, is commendable. But that would take considerable change in the work culture and the way disabled people are treated in the work place.

But the actual implementation of this reform is an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE, and demonstrates we are governed by the vilest crud imagineable.