I'm confused by the BBC

The last couple of weeks have seen the Coalition's Welfare Reform Bill (WRB) being voted on in the House of Lords.

There are two main aspects of disability benefits. First is ESA, Employment Support Allowance. This is the money given to people who are unable to work because of illness or disability. Then there is DLA, Disability Living Allowance. This is the money given to people regardless of their income or whether or not they are in work, in recognition of the increased costs that come with disability.

It is possible to get both; it is also possible to be eligible for either one but not the other. I myself get DLA (because I have substantial disability-related costs) but not ESA (because I am working).

Part of the WRB includes plans to replace DLA with PIP, Personal Independence Payments. One of the stated aims of the WRB is to reduce the DLA spend by 20%. Since the DWP's (Department of Work and Pensions) own figures show that fraud is only 0.5%, this means that genuinely disabled people are going to be hit by this - which is why we're all worried.

(Is everyone keeping up with the abbreviations at the back? A cynical person might think that part of the reason for renaming as well as reforming this benefit is to make it far too complicated for the average news column to be able to report on.)

Disability campaigners have been asking for a six-month pause to the WRB so that a proper independent consultation can be carried out, and to start the change slowly with a pilot project to uncover and iron out the teething troubles. We are of the opinion that if the government is going to fiddle about with the benefits that support the most vulnerable, most disabled, and/or most ill people in the country (including many who are terminally ill and only claiming for their last few months of life) they should think really carefully about it and be sure that they will do as little damage to as few people as possible.

Last night, the Lords voted. The government won, by 16 votes, the WRB rattles on to the next stage. The good news is that in order to swing the vote, Lord Freud had to make an awful lot of promises - under oath and on the record - about the implementation of PIP. Our amendments aren't passed, but some of what we were asking for in them has been conceded, and that's more than many of us expected.

What does the BBC have to do with this?

Well, the BBC is confusing me.

First, they ignored the issue. If you were on Twitter, you can't have missed the #spartacusreport hashtag that was top trending in the UK for most of last week. It refers to the Responsible Reform report. Auntie Beeb had time to do all sorts of analysis about middle-class shoplifting, but did not so much as acknowledge our existence.

Then Radio 4's News Quiz did sterling work using comedy to demonstrate exactly how ridiculous the proposals are. Hat-tip to Sandy Toksvig and Sue Perkins in particular.

But from there on in, and in the sections of the Corporation that are defined as News rather than Entertainment, it's been the government line all the way.

For instance, Maria Miller, the person who is laughably job-titled Minister "For" Disabled People, was given unchallenged airtime to claim that Responsible Reform had only used 10% of the responses to the initial WRB proposals. Technically, that's true. There were over 5,000 responses and we only used about 500. Why? Well, the 500 responses we were allowed to use were official responses from "public" people like the Mayor of London (who objected to the proposals on several counts) and organisations like the Papworth Trust, Mind, and Scope (who also objected to the proposals on several counts). The report uses all of the "official" responses to which we were granted access. However, for obvious reasons, we weren't allowed access to the private responses from private individuals. This includes the responses from many campaigners who had written to describe how they, personally, as individuals, would be affected and what their fears were. Yet to hear Miller speak, you'd think we'd cherry-picked a tiny number of supportive statements and ignored thousands of reports in support of the WRB.

Where was the balanced reporting? Where was the skeptical journalist to ask Miller if the thousands of private responses we weren't allowed to use were broadly for or against the government proposals? Why are her vague and often misleading comments allowed to pass unchallenged?

And then this morning, this article (which I'm copy/pasting from in case it gets edited in future, as the BBC often do):

"The government has headed off a House of Lords defeat over plans to replace the Disability Living Allowance.

Ministers want to amend the system to make sure claimants undergo more testing, but opponents say this will mean 500,000 people will lose benefits."

Firstly, the 500,000 losing benefits. The WRB has a stated aim to reduce DLA by 20%. There are 3.2 million people on DLA (source: dwp.research.gov.uk); a 20% reduction is therefore 640,000 genuinely disabled individuals. So we say that the WRB - not the testing - will mean 500,000 people lose benefits partly because it's a nice round number and partly so that no one can accuse us of over-egging the pudding.

Secondly, ministers do not want to make sure we undergo more testing. They want us to undergo different testing (for which they will pay a private company because they think asking our NHS doctors for medical evidence is inappropriate) and they want us to undergo more frequently repeated testing.

We have said that making claimants with incurable conditions undergo frequently repeated testing is a waste of governmental time and money ("no, my leg still hasn't grown back").
We have also said that, particularly with regard to people with mental health issues, too frequently repeated testing causes distress to claimants which may impair their recovery.

We do not pretend, nor have we ever said, that making claimants undergo more testing will mean 500,000 people losing benefits. Those two items don't belong in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence.

You get the idea. There are scores of examples just from the last two days - far too many to deconstruct all of them. We are not seeing balance from the BBC. First we were dismissed and ignored, now we are being misrepresented as ill-informed scare-mongerers making disjointed and illogical claims that we have never made, while Miller and her ilk are permitted to broadcast spin and propaganda that the WRB itself and the DWP's own statistics disprove.

The reason I feel upset by this behaviour from the BBC when I can usually ignore it from the Daily Mail is the same reason why I feel more betrayed by the 65 Liberal Democrat lords who voted with the government than I do by the 150 Conservative lords. When people or organisations behave in the way you expect, it doesn't bother you - but when people or organisations you believe in let you down, it stings.

We don't expect the BBC to support us, but we expect neutrality, balance, investigation, factual reporting. We're obviously upset that the Lords' vote went against us, but the way the BBC are treating and portraying us only increases the negative image of disabled people and adds insult to injury.

Healthy Eating With Mary

Hello everybody. I feel that I really should be doing some sort of New Year post, and maybe I'll get to that later, but today, we're going to talk about Healthy Eating, which is very important after the excesses of the holiday period.

This... is a Banana.


A banana is a wonderful fruit, with lots of lovely vitamins, and counts as one of your five-a-day.

However, while the banana is delicious when eaten fresh and unaugmented, the essence of cooking is to improve upon the raw materials by combining them while retaining the goodness of the basic ingredients.

For this reason, I have added a few chocolate buttons.

You will notice that the chocolate buttons in the picture are from Montezumas. By using these chocolate buttons I am supporting ethically-trading British artisans, so really this is a contribution to both the planet and the economy - quite apart from the well-known virtues of quality cocoa including its antioxidant properties and its ability to trigger a release of your body's natural endorphins.

However, we again face the problem of core ingredients on their own being boring so I have decided to add a secondary chocolate element to complement the buttons - Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice cream.


My next addition provides much-needed calcium as well as offsetting the cocoa level of the dish. Yes, it's squirty cream.

My personal belief is that the satisfaction gained from a good squirt is a restorative to the soul, making this a dish with psychological benefits in addition to the nutritional aspects already discussed.

Finally, a drizzle of chocolate sauce adds aesthetic appeal and pulls the whole dish together.



I feel much healthier now.

(This blog post completed before the inevitable sugar crash. Apologies for typos.)

Disabled, not dead

Yesterday, my Twitter feed was alight with people being gobsmacked by the content of Panorama's so-called "investigation" into benefit fraud. Interestingly, I understand that neither of the major culprits "investigated" and plastered across the BBC's prime viewing have actually been charged with benefit fraud. More worryingly, it appears that several of the activities the "investigator" took umbrage with weren't actually activities that would preclude a benefit claim...

I didn't watch the programme, in the end. Being, y'know, disabled and all, watching lengthy TV programmes late in the evening isn't something I'm very good at. I was going to catch it on iPlayer but have since decided that it will only upset me. So I want to make clear that this post is not a complaint about the Panorama programme because complaining about a programme I didn't watch and don't intend to watch seems rather ridiculous.

But I am qualified to comment on some of the urban myths surrounding disability, because they do impact me and my friends on a pretty regular basis. Facts and figures unless stated otherwise are drawn from HM Govt's Office for Disability Issues overview of official disability statistics, which can be found here.

Myth #1: Disabled people claiming benefits do not work.
In fact, about 48% of disabled people are employed (although this is compared to 78% of non-disabled people). Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is not means-tested and is awarded based on the impact a person's impairments have on certain aspects of their day to day life, such as washing, dressing, cooking, communicating and moving around. Disabled people often incur unavoidable expenses in trying to meet these essential needs, and DLA recognises that it is unfair to attempt to force working families and individuals to try and meet these non-negotiable and unasked-for additional costs out of their earned wages. Some disabled people work and claim Tax Credits, which is another legitimate form of benefit available to working people. And ESA has provision for Permitted Work for people who can only work very limited hours or in a very supported environment.*

Myth #2: Disabled people are obliged to be poor, and may not own assets.
While "a substantially higher proportion of individuals who live in families with disabled members live in poverty, compared to individuals who live in families where no one is disabled," wealth does not make a family immune to disabling illnesses or injuries. If you own your own home and live in it, then in the long run it's cheaper to let you carry on living there as long as possible than to attempt to rehouse you and have to pay Housing Benefit to you once the capital has evaporated.

Myth #3: Disabled people should not engage in physical activities.
Show me any person with an ongoing long-term physical or mental health condition, and I'll show you a person who has been advised by their medical professionals to take up swimming and/or gardening and/or going to a gym in the hope of staying active and healthy in so far as that's possible. It's always recommended, even if it doesn't get formally funded by the NHS under the guise of physiotherapy. Also: Paralympics, anybody?

Myth #4: Disabled people should not have a good time.
This is the most ridiculous of all - the idea that if a disabled person attends a party, or goes to the pub, or goes shopping, or is seen outdoors laughing with their friends, it's an affront to all right-thinking taxpayers and incontrovertible proof that "there's nothing wrong with him".

We live with our conditions. It's not like being sick and miserable for three days, but it's also not like being sick and miserable for three decades. It's more like being sick and miserable for three months, getting an idea of what's happening, spending three months in a horrible chaotic whirl as you realise your life is changing forever, taking anything from a few months to a few years to grieve and come to terms with what is happening to you, and then... you live. Which means you grab every opportunity you can to have a good time and laugh with your friends, just like any other person. You abandon the "miserable" by the side of the road.** We laugh. So sue us. We're not locked in a box out of sight. We're disabled, not dead.


* This is a gross over-simplification because to properly and fully explain would take another ten blogposts.
** At least until the next time you find yourself and your community under attack in the media.

Second lesson

I recovered pretty well from my first riding lesson. On day 1 I had sore muscles, but nothing too upsetting. On day 2, my muscles had settled down considerably, but my ME/CFS symptoms (sore throat, headache, etc) flared. But on day 3 I was back within normal parameters.

Today was my second lesson. There were good bits and bad bits.

Things started off well. I got onto the horse correctly and was led into the school. I was sitting much more comfortably, I was wearing different shoes and I think that helped my position. I remembered how to hold the reins, and I felt good and confident and totally ready to balance on top of Harvey as he went round and round the school.

Then I realised that, although the instructor (different instructor today) was going to be walking around with me, Harvey wasn't actually on a lead rein. I was supposed to be in charge of getting him to go and stop and turn.

In many ways this makes sense. A lot of how you're supposed to communicate with the horse about going and stopping and turning has to do with how you sit and conversely how you sit is going to be communicating with the horse. So it's a bit unfair and confusing and counter-productive for all concerned if the horse is being tugged left by the instructor when everything in the rider's body is saying Turn Right (and the newbie rider doesn't realise that's what she's doing). It's also about as safe as it could be - unlike cars, horses don't tend to crash into walls when you get something wrong.

However, all the sense in the world could not quell my rising sense of panic. I wanted to beg them to just let me get "sitting" nailed before I tried actual "riding". I was genuinely surprised when my pride and positivity managed to get in between my brain and my mouth, to morph the phrase "no! nooo! let me off! can't do it! don't wanna!" into "okay, absolutely, so what do I need to know?"

To my amazement, I did manage to persuade Harvey to start and stop and turn and change direction several times. But what we then experienced was a clash between my ability, and the principles of teaching.

Principles of teaching are to keep pushing the student to improve. Sit up straight - good! Now put your shoulders back - good! Now try and have your hands about the same width apart as his ears - good! But don't look at the horse, or at your hands, keep looking where you want to go - good! Let your hips move - good! Aim towards the H - use your outside leg - don't lean forwards...

My ability considered on a scale of 1-10 where 10 is my top performance, probably started at about a seven. I got on the horse, I warmed up a bit, my confidence grew, I got a few things right, and I was functioning at a ten! for ooh, maybe a minute and a half. The demands of the teacher increased. My brain was trying to handle more instructions. My body was getting tired. Gradually my ability dwindled to maybe a three. I was dizzy and not breathing well because I was holding my breath as I tried to follow all the instructions at once. We rounded another corner and I was trying so hard to remember which is my "outside leg" that my concentration on sitting up straight all but vanished, and whichever leg it was, the passable squeezes and kicks I was managing at the beginning of the lesson had turned into rather pathetic flops.

At this point Harvey quite reasonably decided that in the absence of a decent rider or a lead rein, he certainly wasn't going to be taking half-baked instructions from the weak and wobbly sack of jelly perched atop his saddle. His walk slowed to a meander and eventually stopped altogether. With the instructor, the supervisor, and the people who were there for the previous and next lessons all calling out words of encouragement, I got another few metres out of him, but by that point I was just burning with humiliation and wanted to not only slide off the horse, but continue right on into the ground.

Of course the ground doesn't work like that, and neither do horses. It's surprisingly difficult to fall off a large horse when you're sitting comfortably with a leg either side and he's standing still, and given a choice, I'd rather not cover my clothes in grubby sand/sawdust/whatever it is. My chair was still outside by the ramped mounting block and my walking stick was in my bag which was hanging on my chair, so I was sitting up there in front of the audience as I waited for someone to bring me one or the other and help me dismount.

I managed to get down more easily than last time, although I still needed help and was hardly elegant. As I joined the other students, a couple of them made sympathetic noises about how difficult it is when you're first learning... but this didn't help, as my tired and embarrassed brain, a hair's breadth away from bursting into tears with frustration and exhaustion, could only hear that people who'd watched my efforts had found me so utterly incompetent that they could only offer pity about just how awful I was. I paid and booked my next lesson as quickly as I could and then went and sat in the car park so that I wouldn't have to talk to anybody for the half-hour until my taxi arrived.

Of course after getting home and having a rest, a cup of tea, and a spot of lunch, I can acknowledge how ridiculous this was (I could sort of acknowledge it at the time but it didn't help). It's not the job of the other students to praise or encourage me, they were trying to be nice and I was behaving like a bit of a twit to run off and hide from the world. It was my second ever lesson, and I did about as well as anyone can be expected to on their second ever lesson. I can even - grudgingly - accept that I do have an illness with physical and cognitive components, and that my rapidly dwindling ability in the latter part of my lesson was to be expected and will probably happen again.

What would be useful is if any readers who've done/are doing horse riding could give me a clue how long I should persevere before I say "no, clearly I'm not cut out for this and should call it a day." When does it become fun rather than a confusing, exhausting struggle?

Riding for the Disabled

A few weeks ago, I decided to embark on a bit of an adventure. For ages I'd been trying to think of something new to do that would enable me to get out, get some exercise, meet people, but be in a safe environment and within my own abilities. Eventually I got in touch with the Riding for the Disabled Association and after a couple of false starts (many of the groups listed as being local to me were for children during term time only) I found that the nearest place for an unaffiliated disabled adult to try riding was at Lowlands Farm, in Warwickshire.

Steve took me there for an initial visit which made the whole idea seem a lot more realistic. I was able to propel myself around the site and all of the people were incredibly welcoming and friendly. I found myself really looking forward to giving it a try once the paperwork was complete (a sign-off from my doctor to confirm the basics of my condition, not too complicated, but it took a couple of weeks).

Meanwhile, I attended to watch another lesson. If I'd watched someone who knew what they were doing and had lessons X times a week trotting about being excellent on a horse, I probably would have just dropped the whole idea. I've no desire to compete, or even to excel. I don't want to own a horse or spend half my life hanging around stables. I am not really a horsey person. But instead, I was able to watch the lesson of a woman who appeared to be more or less on the same page as I was but a few months into the process. Benefiting from the stretch and the movement, her posture and muscle tone were improving. That was what I wanted to achieve and it made me even more impatient for my paperwork to come through.

Which brings us to yesterday morning and My First Riding Lesson.

First we got me kitted out with a helmet and then I rolled up the wheelie-accessible mounting block. This brought me alongside Harvey at a height that made it easy to sit on him. That was okay, I was all, hey, check me out, I'm sitting on a horse, how good is this?

Then the lady holding the lead rein started to take us away from the ramp and into the huge barn that is the riding school, and I realised just how high up I was sitting, on a moving animal, without any kind of grab rail. I didn't want to touch the reins in case I did something wrong, so I just gripped the saddle and prayed that we would stop soon. Thankfully we did come to a reassuring halt just inside the school and my instructor started adjusting bits of saddle so that I was sitting properly.

Of the next fifteen minutes, I just have a hazy recollection of going round and round the school trying to follow a thousand instructions at once while moving the whole time. I kept wanting to say look, I would be able to sit up/lean back/head up/hands here/feet there/etc if only I wasn't being jolted around on the back of this moving horse! A lot of the instructions made sense. For instance, it was actually more comfortable when I looked up and didn't lean forwards. But then she'd tell me to bang my heels into his sides and (even apart from the yes-I-know-it's-stupid fear that I would hurt the horse) I'd concentrate so hard on that, I would end up automatically looking down again at my feet/my hands/the horse/the instructor.

Nevertheless. There was an awful lot of support and positive reinforcement in with the continuous flow of instructions - it was a really good demonstration of how it's possible to push somebody in an encouraging way.

Getting off the horse was interesting, too. I couldn't get off the way I got on, with the horse alongside the great big ramped mounting block, because it's all metal and concrete and one wrong move could cause no end of trouble. Instead, one lady held Harvey still, while another stood on my right-hand side to help me swing my right leg up and over the back of the horse. My instructor was on the left-hand side and guided both my legs as I slid down to the floor, and then I stood still for a minute or two with my body against the horse, arms on his back, and the instructor supporting me from behind until the world stopped spinning. Hopefully as I gain a better idea of where I am and where the horse is, I'll be able to do that on my own.

Everyone warned me that I'd be sore the next day, but to be honest, it isn't too bad. I mean, I can feel it, certainly, especially in my back and my inner thighs, but I've woken up with worse pain and the regular ibuprofen that I take anyway seems to be holding it in check. I can still move as much as I usually can, and I've even managed to get a load of laundry done.

Next week's lesson is already booked, and I can't wait.

Restrictions Apply

Sometimes I find it quite difficult to use social media, as a disabled person. Not so much on a technical level, as on a privacy level. How much can I share with which people? How can I try to be sure no one gets the wrong end of the stick?

As a recipient of certain kinds of disability assistance I have to be aware that I may, at some point, be the subject of an investigation without my knowledge. That's not paranoia; the DWP quite openly advises that (over and above investigations of individuals reported as potential fraudsters) it regularly carries out checks on random samples of claimants. I'll be surprised if, in 2011, this doesn't include checking social media use.

I have nothing to hide. However, social media centres around succinct postings. Twitter is the extreme example at 140 characters, but even where there isn't a limit, it's not the done thing to leave a comment on someone else's blog that is 500 words long. How can I possibly fit in all the explanations and circumstances about how I manage to do something despite my limitations? Attitude plays a part as well. If I'm posting about having gone out somewhere with friends, my readers don't want to read, and I don't want to write, a post detailing which joints hurt and what kind of headache I had and how many times I had to stop and rest, that's just depressing!

My posts and tweets aren't earth-shatteringly important, but here's an example of what I mean:

What I want to tweet:
"Steve and I went for a nice walk round the block this evening."
What I feel I should tweet to avoid accusation:
"Steve pushed me in my wheelchair around the block this evening."

What I want to post:
"I had chicken primavera for dinner. Never had it before but it was really nice. It's chicken, pasta, mushrooms and veg in a creamy sauce."
What I feel I should be adding lest the DWP are watching:
"I had chicken primavera for dinner. It was a ready-made microwave meal because of the difficulties I would have with preparing such a meal from scratch. I had to sit down while the meal cooked. I ate the meal sitting at the kitchen counter because I was unable to carry it through to the main room without dropping it. The meal was only in my house in the first place thanks to the wonders of online shopping."

What I want to blog:
I went into town by myself! I bought X, Y and Z! I had cake! I feel very proud of myself!
What I feel I should add for the benefit of anti-fraud units:
It was the first time I left the house in a month without Steve right there next to me. I had difficulty getting a wheelchair-accessible taxi. I bought a coat in the sales but I could not try on any other clothes because I lacked the energy and co-ordination to safely get changed by myself in unfamiliar surroundings. My pain levels were high and the medication I took to relieve the pain had the side effect of making me feel very dizzy and sick. At one point I became lost despite the simple and familiar layout of the town centre. Despite purchasing and consuming a sugary snack in the hope of boosting my flagging energy, I was unable to accomplish all the tasks I had wanted to because I was too exhausted. Staff in the final shop I visited were concerned about how ill I looked. When I got home I had to nap on the sofa.

You see what I mean? The positive stuff is true. The negative stuff is true. They don't contradict each other if you know the full story, if you know me you can see how they mesh together. But if you were only reading one side of it, you'd think I was either fit as a fiddle, or the world's worst whinger.

I'd be interested to know how other disabled people manage to hit the balance between staying positive online, but not jeopardising their DLA.

Repeat

I know this is ground we've covered before, but a look at today's front pages makes it necessary to go over it again.

In the UK, we have a welfare system. The disability benefit side of it has been being overhauled for the last few years. Labour started it, the Coalition are continuing it, they're using the same company (Atos) to execute it and the same advisor (Lord Freud) to justify it. This is not a party-political issue - red, blue or yellow, to borrow a phrase, they're all in it together.

In summary:

• If you have a doctor's note stating that you are unable to work because of illness, injury or impairment, you apply for Employment Support Allowance (ESA). For the first 13 weeks of your claim you are paid the "assessment phase" rate of up to £67.50 per week.


• If the assessment classifies you as entirely unable to work, and unlikely to ever be able to work, for instance because you are bedbound and terminally ill with a life expectancy of less than a year, you are granted unconditional ESA at the "support" rate of up to £99.85 per week.


• If the assessment decides that, although your disabilities are substantial, you would be able to do *some* work at *some* point in the future with the right conditions/support/equipment/adjustments, then you are awarded ESA at the "work-related activity" rate of up to £94.25 per week. To continue to receive this you must attend regular work-related activities.


• If the assessment determines that your NHS-diagnosed conditions are not severe enough to substantially impair your ability to work in an office environment, or that you would only require minor adjustments, you are deemed "fit to work". You don't get ESA at all, and are placed on Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) which is a smaller amount of money with much higher conditionality attached. If you are fortunate, there may be a note on your jobseeking file excusing you from mandatory application for specific jobs that would aggravate or be incompatible with your condition (for instance someone with speech and hearing difficulties may be "fit to work" but excused from mandatory application for call-centre jobs).

Leaving aside all the arguments about whether the system is fair, how their fitness-to-work tests relate to what is required to perform a job in the real world, and so on... the Department for Work and Pensions released these statistics yesterday, about ESA applicants over the last two years:

• 7% were incapable of any work (Support group)


• 17% were able to do some sort of work given the correct support (Work-related activity group)


• 39% were deemed to be fit for work and were moved onto jobseeker's allowance


• 36% dropped out of the application process


• 1% of applications were still in progress

Today, the Express have taken these numbers and decided that 1% (still in assessment phase) plus 7% (Support group ESA) plus 17% (WRA group ESA) equals 25% of applicants approved to receive some form of ESA. So far, so true. However, their headline screams that therefore the remaining 75% - those moved onto JSA, and those who drop out of the system entirely - are "faking".

This is simply not true.

The fact that a person has failed to score enough points to get ESA (yes, it really is a points-based computer system) does not mean that they scored no points whatsoever, or even that they're not disabled, just that they're not quite disabled enough to be Officially unfit for work. That's why we have the assessment process! To assess people!

To apply to be assessed is not "faking".

To have a level of impairment that falls just short of the ESA bar is not "faking".

There will also be quite a few applicants who suffered an acute injury or illness (for instance, they were in a car accident) and were advised to apply for ESA as a temporary or worst case scenario - but in the 13-week assessment period, they have recovered well so they have been moved to JSA or have returned to work.

To recover from an illness or injury does not mean that the illness or injury was "faked".

There are also the people who get placed onto Jobseeker's Allowance, and go to appeal, and win. The rate of people winning their appeals is around 40% and this increases to 70% where the appellant has someone to represent them. Regrettably, there are also a number of genuinely disabled people who simply don't have the wherewithal to fight an appeal, and have to attempt to survive without the benefits they need. I myself have been in this situation.

To be too ill to fight is not "faking".

There are people who, during their assessment period, are fortunate to find a suitable job which is prepared to make the necessary adjustments, or who, like myself, have enough personal support around them to enable them to be self-employed.

To return to the taxpaying workforce is not "faking".

A very few people will be fortunate enough to have other resources to fall back on. Perhaps an insurance payout of some kind, or a lottery win, or the sale of assets, will save them from the indignity of having to complete a process that treats them as the worst kind of fraudster from beginning to end.

To have alternative resources is not "faking".

Most significantly, there are those who die before the assessment phase is complete.

To die of a condition is perhaps the strongest possible indicator that the condition was not "faked".


I'd provide more concrete statistics, but we don't have them. Once you leave ESA, you're not monitored. We don't know how many of these people have got jobs, have died, have killed themselves, have left the country... no one cares. The Express just goes ahead and calls them all "fakers".