Atos/WCA documentary's

Scorpion0x17 said:

as i said, they dont "lack compassion" for their own family/friends, but when it comes to the job, experience of how they actually are in these "interviews" shows otherwise with "interviewees"

As I've already said some may lack compassion. But lets not tar a whole class of people with the same brush just because of few bad apples. That's exactly what we're all fighting against!

some one said:

i get you may have some personal reason to argue their 'side' as we do arguing our own

Not at all. And I'm not arguing 'their side' - I am present my own personal, as unbiased as I can be, opinion of the situation.

some one said:

but it's simple, theres no real excuse to treat people how they do, it's that simple,

There's no excuse for how some individuals treat people, no. But, again, let's not tar the everyone that does that job with the same brush. We are as bad as those dispassionate individuals when we do so.

some one said:

im not here to debate the morality of the system, just that as it is it's unfair and those working for it are the one's implementing it, and my, and a lot of peoples personal experience at these "interviews" has been negative to stressful and unfair, and it is the "interviewer" who made it so

I don't think that it is the interviewer that 'made it so' - the interviewer is not the one that makes the decisions - those are made by a decision maker - so, again whilst there are inevitably some bad interviewers, who will bias the reports, and so lead to the wrong decision being made, I don't think we can rightly tar all the interviewers with that same brush. Doing so is as bad as the problem interviewers biasing their reports.

some one said:

and im sorry but i wont defend someone i think is doing an unfair job they know hurts people, if we use goatworshipers analogy of ***, 'just doing a job to survive' doesnt really cut it does it

Really?

Oh, come on. We are not being rounded up and sent to death camps, so let's stop with all these nazi analogies. It belittles us as inteligent individuals to lower ourselves to using such arguments.

You have the legal right to appeal any decision made by the DWP decision makers.

Thousands have (and I am one who did), and a high percentage of those that have win their appeal (like I did).

That shows that it is a failing of the system, not of individual interviewers.

Attack the system, not the people, who are just people, like you and me, at the end of the day.

[/quote]

fair enough, you have your views and expriences i have mine, all i know is the majority of experiences i hear about, via people i know or stories from ducumentaries , have been negative, its good you had a positive one, but sadly its rare for most of us

as for the analogy, i merely suggested we go with it, it was not my analogy, i didn't create i just went with it

if you have a problem with that analogy talk to the person who brought it up, i merely suggested 2 things,

its about comparison to having compassion and no or little compassiosn for the "interviewee"

, and the fact that 'doing their job' is never an excuse to treat people badly

as we are on a form on autism, an issue which faces lots of discrimination because of the issues related to it, id woould have thought it was relevant, if its your view that it is "belittling and lowering" to compare, fair enough i dont agree, while it may have been exaggerative, as goatworshiper already admitted, the comparison is still there to be made in some form be it not as exagerative

this was never about the analogy, or our views, its about facts and why they are happening

all i ask is you research just how many people are afected by atos "interviews" and ask them directly why they were affected

we have had a system for a long time, but it wasnt always this way, something changed and who they began to hire changed, and why they hired them

Scorpion0x17 said:

as i said, they dont "lack compassion" for their own family/friends, but when it comes to the job, experience of how they actually are in these "interviews" shows otherwise with "interviewees"

As I've already said some may lack compassion. But lets not tar a whole class of people with the same brush just because of few bad apples. That's exactly what we're all fighting against!

some one said:

i get you may have some personal reason to argue their 'side' as we do arguing our own

Not at all. And I'm not arguing 'their side' - I am present my own personal, as unbiased as I can be, opinion of the situation.

some one said:

but it's simple, theres no real excuse to treat people how they do, it's that simple,

There's no excuse for how some individuals treat people, no. But, again, let's not tar the everyone that does that job with the same brush. We are as bad as those dispassionate individuals when we do so.

some one said:

im not here to debate the morality of the system, just that as it is it's unfair and those working for it are the one's implementing it, and my, and a lot of peoples personal experience at these "interviews" has been negative to stressful and unfair, and it is the "interviewer" who made it so

I don't think that it is the interviewer that 'made it so' - the interviewer is not the one that makes the decisions - those are made by a decision maker - so, again whilst there are inevitably some bad interviewers, who will bias the reports, and so lead to the wrong decision being made, I don't think we can rightly tar all the interviewers with that same brush. Doing so is as bad as the problem interviewers biasing their reports.

some one said:

and im sorry but i wont defend someone i think is doing an unfair job they know hurts people, if we use goatworshipers analogy of ***, 'just doing a job to survive' doesnt really cut it does it

Really?

Oh, come on. We are not being rounded up and sent to death camps, so let's stop with all these nazi analogies. It belittles us as inteligent individuals to lower ourselves to using such arguments.

You have the legal right to appeal any decision made by the DWP decision makers.

Thousands have (and I am one who did), and a high percentage of those that have win their appeal (like I did).

That shows that it is a failing of the system, not of individual interviewers.

Attack the system, not the people, who are just people, like you and me, at the end of the day.

[/quote]

fair enough, you have your views and expriences i have mine, all i know is the majority of experiences i hear about, via people i know or stories from ducumentaries , have been negative, its good you had a positive one, but sadly its rare for most of us

as for the analogy, i merely suggested we go with it, it was not my analogy, i didn't create i just went with it

if you have a problem with that analogy talk to the person who brought it up, i merely suggested 2 things,

its about comparison to having compassion and no or little compassiosn for the "interviewee"

, and the fact that 'doing their job' is never an excuse to treat people badly

as we are on a form on autism, an issue which faces lots of discrimination because of the issues related to it, id woould have thought it was relevant, if its your view that it is "belittling and lowering" to compare, fair enough i dont agree, while it may have been exaggerative, as goatworshiper already admitted, the comparison is still there to be made in some form be it not as exagerative

this was never about the analogy, or our views, its about facts and why they are happening

all i ask is you research just how many people are afected by atos "interviews" and ask them directly why they were affected

we have had a system for a long time, but it wasnt always this way, something changed and who they began to hire changed, and why they hired them