Yet another Daily Mail FAIL!!
What is it with these journalists from the Daily Mail?
Why can’t they ever get anything right when it comes to reporting something factual over the government’s callous welfare reforms. Here’s a really ‘slack’ piece of journalism from one of the Daily Mail’s finest, strangely enough he goes by the name of James Slack; slack by name slack by nature I’d say.
Read Slack’s factually inaccurate article here
The REAL facts with all the DWP links are here
Slack makes a pathetic attempt to try and get his deluded readers to believe that it’s the ‘lefties’ who are creating the myths over the dangerously hazardous welfare reforms which government is inflicting upon thousands. Slack headlines his article ‘ What the Left doesn’t want you to know about Britain’s £200 billion welfare bill’. He goes on to write the usual rubbish we’ve grown accustomed to reading in the gutter press, the particular piece which got my goat was Slack’s incredibly lazy attempt to rubbish what he absurdly pitches as a left – sided myth over those on incapacity benefits. Here’s an excerpt from Slack’s article:
‘Slack fact 1′
“THE TRULY SICK ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO WORK”
“CLAIM: New tests to check Incapacity Benefit claimants’ inability to work are having a devastating effect on the sick and mentally ill.”
“REALITY: Incapacity Benefit, which was renamed Employment and Support Allowance, is paid to people considered unfit for work. Only 232,000 — one in eight of those tested by doctors — have been deemed too unwell to do any work.”
Actually in reality incapacity benefit was never renamed Employment & Support Allowance at all
If Slack had checked his facts he would see that the Employment & Support Allowance here is entirely separate to the incapacity benefits found here. If one had been renamed as the other the two would not continue to exist.
‘Slack fact 2′
“Another 837,000 who took the test were found to be fit to work immediately, and a further 367,300 were judged able to do some level of work.”
In reality Slack is miles off the mark with this little gem. In actual fact only 700,200 incapacity benefit claimants have been tested under the much stricter Employment & Support Allowance rules of which 496,800 (71%) were found to be perfectly entitled to the allowance. the percentage figure varies each month – figures of 78% being recorded in October 2010, 77% in March 2011 and 75% in July 2012.
290,200 were deemed chronically incapacitated and incapable of any work related activity whatsoever and 206,600 were deemed to have a severe limitation such that they qualified for ‘support’ from the government in helping them work towards a return to work – sadly very few end up getting the Support because the DWP is seemingly too busy feeding the press with the kind of garbage which incompetent journalists like Slack writes for the Daily Fail.
‘Slack fact 3′
“Some 878,300 people — around a third of the 2.6 million who were claiming the benefit — have chosen to drop their claims rather than face a medical.”
In actual fact the figure relating to incapacity claimants, who for any number or reasons dropped their claim, is nowhere near 878,300 – it is 24,700 as per the DWP’s most up to date figures of August 2012.
‘Slack fact 4′
“One in eight of those tested by doctors”
In actual fact the DWP under it’s private and ‘commercially sensitive’contracting arrangements with Atos Healthcare recruits an abundance of nurses as well as doctors and the chances of everyone being tested by a fully qualified doctor is zero.
‘Slack fact 5′
“Some 30 people were claiming they were unfit to work because of blisters, while 60 cited acne and 2,110 said ‘sprains and strains’ rendered them unfit for employment.”
How on earth can Slack have had access to what should be highly confidential medical records relating to 30 individual assessments to know precisely what conditions they were citing as their one and only ground for claiming they were unfit for employment?
It bemuses me how the Daily Mail can make so much fuss about footballer Wayne Rooney’s £130,000 a week sprained sprained ankle with no reference or inference to the possibility of him ‘skiving’.
I also note the gutter press draws attention in previous articles to the tragedy of a 31 year old woman who committed suicide over what they describe as a ‘minor skin condition. The article describes how the woman’s mental health deteriorated to the point where, after two failed attempts, she sadly took her own life by jumping off the Humber Bridge.
I presume James Slack would not retrospectively imply the poor woman was ‘fit for work?’
Why not email Slack and tell him what a truly useless
journalist he is is?
And then complain
To the Press Complaints Commission