To All The Tory Voters

boromike85 said:
The 10 day wait isn't 100% true. The government tried to delay lockdown by advising people and businesses to self-impose lockdown. A good chunk of the country listened but unfortunately too many didn't and businesses also refused to shut because they wouldn't be eligible for support/insurance if they closed when it wasn't mandatory to do so.

I had already started working from home when lockdown was imposed and hadn't been to any shops/pubs/restaurants for over a week as an example.
Click to expand...
I am not having that boromike. I like you stopped going in to the office way before the official lockdown. Lockdown wasn't imposed and the smokescreen of allowing people to decide for themselves is, in my opinion, just that, a smokescreen for the government to hide behind. If you work in an industry that you can't work from home in, and you need to live month to month, then you will continue to go to work as long as you can. That was the financial reality facing many.

Also it in no way changes the fact that I had no conjecture. The above is yours and I's interpretation of what happened. The government did not impose lockdown for 10 days after advised to do so. That is a fact.
 
There was a recent report into the systemic failings of the DWP process. I say systemic because in both cases investigated, the subject died, but the DWP had followed the protocols to the letter. The problem isn't the DWP, but the system in place. I am sure there are some DWP jobsworths, but in the cases investigated the DWP did their job as outlined by government policy.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get people who are fit to work, back into work. Stopping benefits then asking the claimant to prove they should be receiving benefits should be criminal. In both cases highlighted above the draconian measure directly caused their death. The report found the government and their policies were directly responsible.

Anyone supporting a regime like that is full of sh*t
 
Laughing said:
I am not having that boromike. I like you stopped going in to the office way before the official lockdown. Lockdown wasn't imposed and the smokescreen of allowing people to decide for themselves is, in my opinion, just that, a smokescreen for the government to hide behind. If you work in an industry that you can't work from home in, and you need to live month to month, then you will continue to go to work as long as you can. That was the financial reality facing many.

Also it in no way changes the fact that I had no conjecture. The above is yours and I's interpretation of what happened. The government did not impose lockdown for 10 days after advised to do so. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

It is which is why I worded it as not 100% true instead of saying wrong. My point is that they didn't go from no lockdown to lockdown after waiting 10 days doing nothing, they slowed things down by going with an advised lockdown. I don't think locking down 10 days earlier would have got us 10 days benefit, more like 4-5 because of the semi lockdown.
 
boromike85 said:
It is which is why I worded it as not 100% true instead of saying wrong. My point is that they didn't go from no lockdown to lockdown after waiting 10 days doing nothing, they slowed things down by going with an advised lockdown. I don't think locking down 10 days earlier would have got us 10 days benefit, more like 4-5 because of the semi lockdown.
Click to expand...
You are right that there were some benefits in slowing the economy, difficult to measure exactly how many that may have saved. I wouldn't argue with the principle. I would argue that the government ignored the lockdown advice until they were told how many deaths would be caused by pursuing their herd immunity plan. It wasn't a considered thoughtful approach, which I guess is how I would argue that. Even if we improved things by 4 or 5 days, which is a stretch, that still more than halves the covid deaths.
 
Huddboro said:
I know someone who’s worked for the DWP for a long time; they have targets like any other job sadly the targets are based on how many people they sanction and send to decisions makers- if they don’t send enough they’ll get it in the neck.

How anyone can defend this shower after the gross incompetence this year is unbelievable. I totally appreciate people have different views and vote for whoever but to blindly support policies that have killed people and hurt the poorest in society is staggering. We should be holding the government to account including when he lies regarding child poverty amongst numerous issues.
Click to expand...

That is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read. 100% made up lie. The fact is people actually believe it. You have people liking that post and it’s complete lie.
Just to prove it’s a total lie, why would you send a decision to a decision maker? What instance? What decision would need to be referred? Ask you “friend” and get back to me. I suspect you won’t
 
Laughing said:
No my argument is not conjecture. I said the tories locked down after SAGE advised them to. You then began the conjecture by engaging in a bit of whataboutery.

The fact is Johnson ignored SAGE for a further 10 days before locking down that is a fact. To argue Labour would have been no better is nonsense, we don't know. It really is a silly, ill thought out argument.
Click to expand...
Laughing said:
I am not having that boromike. I like you stopped going in to the office way before the offici

Also it in no way changes the fact that I had no conjecture. The above is yours and I's interpretation of what happened. The government did not impose lockdown for 10 days after advised to do so. That is a fact.
Click to expand...
Not according to Chris Whitty...it's not a FACT then is it ?

Professor Whitty said: 'Ministers at the time, who were put in an incredibly difficult position, in my view, followed the advice given by SAGE... with a delay that was no more than you would reasonably expect for what are really very difficult things to operationalise and decide.

England's chief medical officer has launched a staunch defence of his actions over the Covid-19 pandemic, saying mass testing had to be abandoned due to capacity issues and lockdown came at about the right time.


'I'm not saying now, and I'm not going to say at any point, to be clear, that there was huge delay between the advice that ministers received, given the enormity of the difficulties that we were asking of people and the practical implications of what was being done.'
The chief medical officer admitted that quite a lot of the changes implemented before lockdown likely were already driving the R down below one.
Recently, an outpouring of scientists have suggested that lockdown was unnecessary and that simple social distancing measures would have been sufficient.
 
Cooper671 said:
That is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read. 100% made up lie. The fact is people actually believe it. You have people liking that post and it’s complete lie.
Just to prove it’s a total lie, why would you send a decision to a decision maker? What instance? What decision would need to be referred? Ask you “friend” and get back to me. I suspect you won’t
Click to expand...
You’re a complete and utter c*ck all I ever read is nonsense supporting the Tories until you’re blue in the face.
Multiple times people have been told to refer decisions to decisions makers; I know of one case where the woman’s husband had been sleeping with his daughter; she couldn’t leave the house due to panic attacks amongst other things; she was passed to a decision maker and sanctioned for not making appointments. Hers is a case amongst hundreds of thousands of people that you just brush off as rubbish.
 
Huddboro said:
You’re a complete and utter c*ck all I ever read is nonsense supporting the Tories until you’re blue in the face.
Multiple times people have been told to refer decisions to decisions makers; I know of one case where the woman’s husband had been sleeping with his daughter; she couldn’t leave the house due to panic attacks amongst other things; she was passed to a decision maker and sanctioned for not making appointments. Hers is a case amongst hundreds of thousands of people that you just brush off as rubbish.
Click to expand...

Please see the board rules.

The fact there is no targets for sanctions, if you a work coach wants to sanction someone it has to be passed to their manager who in turn has to pass it to their manager. It wouldn’t go to a decision maker at all.

Nice lie though
 
Cooper671 said:
Please see the board rules.

The fact there is no targets for sanctions, if you a work coach wants to sanction someone it has to be passed to their manager who in turn has to pass it to their manager. It wouldn’t go to a decision maker at all.

Nice lie though
Click to expand...
You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. It goes directly to a decision maker; do you think these things up on the spot to defend the Tories? Irrelevant of board rules my opinion still stands.
 
No I work there, therefore I know a lot more than you. Oh by the way I’m a decision maker 😂

Carry on though 😂
 
Nobby_Barnes said:
Not according to Chris Whitty...it's not a FACT then is it ?

Professor Whitty said: 'Ministers at the time, who were put in an incredibly difficult position, in my view, followed the advice given by SAGE... with a delay that was no more than you would reasonably expect for what are really very difficult things to operationalise and decide.
Click to expand...

There was a 10 day delay between the advice been given and it being followed, that is public record - I don't care what Witty thinks as to what is reasonably expected, that is not his area of expertise.

England's chief medical officer has launched a staunch defence of his actions over the Covid-19 pandemic, saying mass testing had to be abandoned due to capacity issues and lockdown came at about the right time.
Click to expand...

Well I never argues this, but here goes, of course he defends his actions. He isn't about to admit political failure, nor does it say anything about whether advice was followed.

Go read the redacted SAGE minutes and make up your own mind. Nothing you say here counters my argument, nor does it address your comment about Labour would have done the same thing. It simply addressess' nothing.
 
Cooper671 said:
No I work there, therefore I know a lot more than you. Oh by the way I’m a decision maker 😂

Carry on though 😂
Click to expand...
I will thanks. You carry on defending the corrupt government at any cost. If you do work for the DWP (and I highly doubt it) then I’d hate to be a person in need.
 
Cooper671 said:
As suspected you have no knowledge of the assessment. Certainly is not a tick box exercise and the private contractor doesn’t make the decision either.... but I’m sure you know that 🙄

I’d go with a health care professional, various evidence and the persons own input than the judgement of a random in a foodbank.
Click to expand...

I have no knowledge of the assesment either but I've seen the condition of those incorrectly passed fit to work through its implementation.
 
Huddboro said:
I will thanks. You carry on defending the corrupt government at any cost. If you do work for the DWP (and I highly doubt it) then I’d hate to be a person in need.
Click to expand...

Most posters on here are already aware I work there, I have made no secret of that. That’s why I know what your saying it’s utter rubbish.

I am a WCA decision maker currently making habitual residency test decisions due to no face to face assessments. But hey what do I know 🤔.... just unlucky for you that your made up lie was so far off the mark it was untrue


Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
I have no knowledge of the assesment either but I've seen the condition of those incorrectly passed fit to work through its implementation.
Click to expand...

Are these cases overturned via mandatory consideration or just people who have disallowed? If the former hoe do you know the decision was incorrect?
 
Cooper671 said:
Most posters on here are already aware I work there, I have made no secret of that. That’s why I know what your saying it’s utter rubbish.

I am a WCA decision maker currently making habitual residency test decisions due to no face to face assessments. But hey what do I know 🤔.... just unlucky for you that your made up lie was so far off the mark it was untrue




Are these cases overturned via mandatory consideration or just people who have disallowed? If the former hoe do you know the decision was incorrect?
Click to expand...
Why would I make it up? The person I know works at Hartlepool DWP; the fact that they cut a load of JSA staff and got staff who aren't trained up on it to assess is something else I'm sure you'll say is utter rubbish?

Another case a girl had been raped on holiday; she was sanctioned due to having to go back to testify and ended up losing her job. The whole system stinks but I'm sure you'll come back and say it's absolutely perfect and nobody that shouldn't be sanctioned gets sanctioned.
 
Cooper671 said:
Most posters on here are already aware I work there, I have made no secret of that. That’s why I know what your saying it’s utter rubbish.

I am a WCA decision maker currently making habitual residency test decisions due to no face to face assessments. But hey what do I know 🤔.... just unlucky for you that your made up lie was so far off the mark it was untrue




Are these cases overturned via mandatory consideration or just people who have disallowed? If the former hoe do you know the decision was incorrect?
Click to expand...

Due to their ongoing illness.
 
They cut a load of JSA staff? When was this? How do you have people untrained in JSA assessing? Assessing what? People on JSA interact with a work coach.

There is 100% no targets for sanctions and as stated if a work coach wants to sanction it has to be approved by a higher executive officer and then a senior executive officer (which would be the person charge of the full building usually)

This approach was introduced by JP Marks the director general. I was at a meeting with him in Leeds when he stated he had brought this approach in . They only want to sanction as a last resort, not first as you imply
 
Cooper671 said:
They cut a load of JSA staff? When was this? How do you have people untrained in JSA assessing? Assessing what? People on JSA interact with a work coach.

There is 100% no targets for sanctions and as stated if a work coach wants to sanction it has to be approved by a higher executive officer and then a senior executive officer (which would be the person charge of the full building usually)

This approach was introduced by JP Marks the director general. I was at a meeting with him in Leeds when he stated he had brought this approach in . They only want to sanction as a last resort, not first as you imply
Click to expand...
That may be the premise but sadly I know and you know (but won't admit) that people are being sanctioned wrongly as a first resort by overzealous staff rather than following proper processes as they are snowed under with the amount of work to do. Appointments alone with work coaches have been cut in time (this was pre-covid) due to the issues with people on JSA and the new system not being aligned.
 
Huddboro said:
That may be the premise but sadly I know and you know (but won't admit) that people are being sanctioned wrongly as a first resort by overzealous staff rather than following proper processes as they are snowed under with the amount of work to do. Appointments alone with work coaches have been cut in time (this was pre-covid) due to the issues with people on JSA and the new system not being aligned.
Click to expand...

Applying a sanction would create more work, therefore if you were snowed under it would create more work. As stated a work coach can not apply a sanction without authorisation from 2 levels of management.

There isn’t and never has been a target for sanctions. It’s a myth peddled about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top