Correspondence from the DWP for 2005

J

JohnTheJack

Moderator
Staff member
I have this week received these from the DWP. I've had a quick look through.

The two things that strike me are that they confirm Aylward continued on the TSC when he left the DWP, despite his myriad COIs, and a briefing from AfME which is of some interest.

I'll get more when I can. I'm not sure which year to ask for next, perhaps 2011 or 2002.
 

Attachments

Sly Saint said:
Just having a quick look at this one and it's not been aligned correctly meaning bits (whole of rhs) are missing. You can guess what is written but not always.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's how they came. There is a bit missing. I could go back and ask for a better copy, but it doesn't look to me as though there is anythng important missing.

Next time I get some stuff, I'll ask them if they would try to do a better job.
 
Luther Blissett said:
It seems to me AfME were trying to position themselves at the front of the queue if any sub-contracting was going to be done by the DWP.
Click to expand...

Wonder if they were paid by the DWP for this, from 2016:

Action for M.E.
Like This Page · 1 December 2016 Action for M.E. is today hosting a training session for more than 80 work coaches employed by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to raise awareness of the needs of people who have M.E. and are able, with the right support, to stay in or return to employment.

The training has come out of our Support, Empower and Employ people with M.E. (SEE M.E.) pilot project, which was embedded within the specialist Bristol NHS M.E. clinic and employed specialist employment support staff with experience of M.E to work with more than 120 people with M.E. over 12 months between 2015 and 2016. Independent evaluation of the project found that 72% of SEE M.E. clients achieved their employment goals which included returning to their job after lengthy sickness absence, starting a new job and, for those too ill to work, making their best possible exit from unsustainable employment.

Delivered by our SEE M.E. Project Coordinator, the training is based on our SEE M.E. toolkit, which supports work coaches, specialist M.E. clinicians, employment advisers, and careers guidance practitioners to understand M.E. from their client’s unique point of view and personal experience, integrate the support they offer, and work collaboratively with other support professionals. The toolkit can be found at https://www.actionforme.org.uk/living-with-me/managing-work/see-me-project/

The project also helped inform updates to our employment resources for people with M.E. and their managers.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
Esther12 said:
Wonder if they could be paid by the DWP for this, from 2016:

Click to expand...

Seems to have been an unhealthily cosy relationship between @Action for M.E., Bristol ME clinic (EC?) and the DWP here, especially when you read "Support, Empower and Employ people with M.E.", which to my mind sounds like double-speak meaning get them off benefits whether it's humane or not.

ETA: Especially as I realise that was only a couple of years ago or so, when so many of the worrying issues were by then widely known within the ME community.
 
Last edited:
Barry said:
Seems to have been an unhealthily cosy relationship between @Action for M.E., Bristol ME clinic (EC?) and the DWP here, especially when you read "Support, Empower and Employ people with M.E.", which to my mind sounds like double-speak meaning get them off benefits whether it's humane or not.
Click to expand...

Brings back all the old doubts , doesn't it? Is there any evidence that they have reformed?
 
The SEE M.E project has troubled me for a long time, as I suspect (but cannot find any evidence) that it was happening to people subject to DWP sanctions for non-compliance.

If this is true, and AfME was subcontracted by the DWP to deliver this program (or sub-contracted by sub-contractors), they would have been contractually obliged to report people to the DWP Decision Makers for sanctions, making them complicit. I'd be interested if anyone had more information on this program, especially if they have knowledge about whether the DWP mandated people to attend. (Either workfare or 'work related' activity.)

A lot of charities got into trouble for doing similar, as they claimed that people volunteered to attend their sub-contracted courses . It turned out that people volunteered to avoid sanction for not engaging with 'suggested' or mandated DWP activity. It became so Orwellian, that we actually had a 'keep volunteering voluntary' campaign. People where (and still are) boycotting businesses and charities that were/are using workfare, and in some places, the national charities had no idea what was going on in local areas like charity shops.
 
Esther12 said:
Wonder if they were paid by the DWP for this, from 2016:



Click to expand...

this whole attitude to employment is dubious for people who are on benefits and should be challenged on that basis alone but it is also highly damaging for people who are in work when they get ill

what people really need is support for a period of convalescence of several months as soon as possible after onset assuming diagnosis happens reasonably soon afterwards, failing that as soon as possible after diagnosis. this is totally against what employers and DWP want which is to get you back to work as soon as possible. this together with all the stuff AFME push about phased return meant that I started trying to return albeit on a very low starting point within 2 months of getting diagnosed. And that inevitably meant pushing myself. I was pushing myself for 2 years post my diagnosis to initially try to increase my working hours and then just to keep working. This on top of approximately 10 years pushing myself as an undiagnosed person has undoubtedly contributed to me being much more limited and now spending a lot of time at moderate ME levels and only mild on my good days. Only when I saw a Dr who actually knows something about ME I finally accepted (what I already knew in my heart of hearts) that I had to stop.

This approach of phased return needs evaluation by someone sensible like L Jason because like GET there might be a few people who are finding it helpful but really how many people is it harming.

ETA obviously Im speaking from the milder end of the severity spectrum here but if mild more at risk of being pressurised/thinking you should be returning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top