Tories dishonest to get public onside before plans launched...

The Tories are playing a very clever, but disturbingly immoral game with the benefits system. They plan to make dramatic changes to the system for people claiming DLA in 2013. DLA will be scrapped, and replaced with PIPs: Personal Independence Payments. This has been opposed by many disability charities, but to no avail.
 When the changes begin, many people with serious disabling conditions will find themselves cut off from help. This is likely to cause an initial negative reaction from the general public, as they witness vulnerable people being forced into an even more vulnerable position.

So, what can the government do about this anticipated lack of support for their policies? Well, cleverly, they have chosen to repeatedly downplay the needs of disabled people and to encourage disability discrimination. Ian Duncan Smith is particularly making encouraging progress in turning the public towards disabled people, and, as ever, the Daily Mail are lapping up the opportunity to spread the hate, like overenthusiastic teachers' pets...

The Daily Mail published  THIS article this week. As well as insultingly belittling a condition which can be hugely stressful for many families, the article also printed other grossly innaccurate information.

(...a brief pause to allow you to get over your shock at the last part of that sentence...)


FULL FACT
Full fact stepped in once again, to investigate the Daily Mail's claims, and to help put the record straight HERE. This was their conclusion:
"The Daily Mail's claim that 3,200 people with ADHD have used the Motability Car Scheme is inaccurate. The number eligible for higher rate DLA- and therefore Motability vehicles- is recorded as 100 by the DWP, some way short of the figure given by the Mail.
 However even if we conflate behavioural disorders with ADHD, as the Mail appears to have done, it is likely that the number using the scheme would fail to top the 3,200 claimed, as only 30 per cent of those eligible end up using the scheme.
To cap it all off, the article also downplays the severity of the disability that is needed to qualify for the Motability Scheme."

ADHD
Other than being aware that many families face enormous stress in dealing with the behavioural problems of ADHD, I know very little about the condition. However, the NHS website states that "Many people with ADHD also have additional problems, such as sleep disorders or learning difficulties", so to make assumptions about their needs by generalisation of the condition is, I believe, unwise.

Not happy to leave the damage there though, Richard Littlejohn, journalist for the Daily Mail, wrote THIS piece , stating that "Even naughty schoolboys diagnosed with the make-believe disease 'Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder' (ADHD) are classified as disabled." Obviously he has an extensive medical background qualifying him to make such judgements...oh hang on, my mistake...


MOTABILITY SCHEME

An extract from the Mail article..
"To get the motability element, families of sufferers must prove they need 'guidance or supervision most of the time from another person when walking out of doors in unfamiliar places.' They can either spend it themselves on transport, or have it paid directly to Motability to provide a lease car". 
For anyone not aware, the motability element of DLA is split into two parts: lower rate and higher rate. The quote above is directly taken from the descriptors for the lower rate. To be eligible to use the Motability scheme, you MUST be receiving the higher rate.

I've previously written a post about the Motability Scheme, but given the utter tosh that is circulating in the media on the topic lately, I think a few points of fact are worth repeating...

• Only people receiving the higher rate of DLA are eligible to use the Motability scheme.
• The DLA forms are over 50 pages long, and requires medical evidence to support each claim.
• DLA is not about your ability to work. It is about your care needs, and your mobility needs. Many people receiving DLA are working, and without the funds to cover the extra costs incurred through being a disabled person in the workplace, would have to give up their job.
• The Motability scheme allows you to nominate up to two people to drive the car for you. You do not have to be in the car when it is being driven, but the trips must for your needs.
• Motability cars ARE NOT FREE. It is a lease, the car must be returned within three years, and is paid for with the higher mobility element of the DLA, should you choose to spend your benefit to which you have been found to qualify for, in that way.

• Very few people using Motability have 'luxury cars', due to the four figure sum needed to be paid as an extra fee, which most people on benefits simply can't afford (...and that's not because all of their money has gone on plasma tv's and holidays... that is a Daily Mail myth too!)

The government, and some of the media, are relying on the general public to not check out the facts before believing everything that they are spoon-feeding them.
Luckily for them, government and media aren't being disappointed...

Urgent appeal for action NOW

The following is from Kali's blog on 'Benefit Scrounging Scum' HERE 

Kali is trying to raise awareness of how the welfare reform bill is under attack and therefore the government are trying to move the debate away from the main accessible room, and into more private quarters to cover over the enormous concerns that so many people have about the immoral changes they propose....

 

"URGENT APPEAL FOR ACTION NOW!

After an incredibly constructive debate yesterday in the House Of Lords the government appear to be concerned about how many Lords had significant concerns about the Welfare Reform Bill, even those Lords who in principle supported the bill had major questions they wanted answers to.

For a bill of this size and importance, convention dictates that the next stage of the bill should be kept in the main chamber of the House of Lords for debate. It's particularly important the bill be continued to be debated in the main chamber as disability access to the smaller committee rooms is very limited and people will not be able to access the committee rooms to exercise their democratic right to observe the passge of the bill from the public chamber.

At 3.30pm today the govermnent are tabling a motion to move the grand committee stage of the bill into one of the smaller committee rooms. Presumably the government are hoping that by moving a bill into the committee rooms it will be harder to scrutinise - there won't be enough space in any of the committee rooms to allow for all the Lords to participate, let alone for us to scrutinise online or attend in person.

This is an outrage - the government are clearly concerned by the level of queries and opposition to the Welfare Reform Bill highlighted by yesterday's debate and wish to quietly sideline it to a committee room where they hope it will pass with less opposition. Tabling the motion for the afternoon following PMQ's is also an underhand trick as it means it will be harder for us to object through the main stream media.

This is our call to arms. This bill affects us, our families and every aspect of our lives, as well as the lives of those currently paying into the system in anticipation of protection should they require it. If we can make enough noise in the next few hours the government will be forced to keep the passage of the bill in the main chamber of the house of lords where it can be effectively and appropriately scrutinised by all.

What you can do to help is this;

Please post copies of this blog onto your facebook, your twitter, stumbleupon, wikio etc. Please email it to everyone you know, please talk about this on your own blogs. Email or phone your MP to register your objections, email or phone the house of lords to explain your concerns, email or phone the media, local or national and explain that whether or not people are in favour of this bill, that it is a fundamental democratic right to have it debated in the main chamber of the house of lords where there is space for all who wish to attend and observe. Highlight the injustice and hypocrisy of the governments behaviour in trying to sideline this important bill into a room too small for all the Lords to attend and certainly too small to allow those in wheelchairs, or with guide dogs, the very people most affected by this bill to be able to observe from the public gallery.

If we make enough noise before 3.30pm today the government will have to drop this underhand tactic and the Bill will continue to be debated in the main chamber of the House of Lords where everyone who wishes to can attend and observe."

PCC report over Daily Mail article

On 22nd July of this year, the Daily Mail printed yet another insulting  article about benefits claimants (anyone shocked?).
I found this one personally insulting, as benefits aside, it was attacking people with similar illnesses to mine. One line states "While many claimants were grappling with serious conditions such as cancer, £24.2million went to sufferers of 'dizziness and giddiness'..."  further on it stated "'malaise and fatigue', which strikes most workers several times a day,"

There is a world of difference between tiredness or even exhaustion for a healthy person at work, and fatigue in a chronically ill person. For a healthy person, once that tiredness has passed, they are back to normal again. For a chronically ill person, the 'payback' of any tiny activity can leave them laid up for weeks, months, or even years.

Having lived with the consequences of "dizziness and giddiness" for 18 years now, I certainly wouldn't dismiss it as a non-illness. When the dizziness is so severe that it can cause you to lose consciousness with little warning, ...when you have to lay horizontally in bed for most of the day because sitting up causes severe lightheadedness, ...when you miss out on the opportunity of having your own child, ...of doing 'normal' things like going out for a meal or meeting up with friends at the pub, when you worked your butt off at school, got good grades and had promising prospects for a career and it has to be put on hold while you watch your friends move on in their lives, ...when a simple short walk to the toilet has to be planned out military-style so that you can work around the risks of head injury and plan the safest method and route... well then you get a different feel for how easily dizziness can be dismissed.

 The above paragraph sounds self-pitying. It isn't intended to be. I have many many blessings in my life, and I don't feel hard done by at all. I do, however, feel absolutely livid at what is happening towards disabled people in society at the moment.

It was the photograph that was attached to the Daily Mail article that really got my blood boiling though...

It was accompanied by the label: "Feckless: Taxpayers are shelling out out hundreds of millions of pounds each year to benefit claimants for conditions including piles, headaches, dizziness and 'malaise' (pictured posed by model)"
This article is just one of too many that have been printed by newspapers such as the daily mail. July had a big bundle of them, it seems. I decided to put in a formal complaint to the PCC. One other person had also complained, so the case was taken forward, and I received the outcome yesterday. It's long, so I will just post the parts that concern me the most..

Commission’s decision in the case of

King/W******** v Daily Mail

The Commission noted that the caption beneath the photograph clearly stated that it had been posed by a model. As such, readers would understand that it was not a genuine image of a benefit claimant, but rather reflected the newspaper’s interpretation of a “feckless” claimant not suffering from a “serious condition”. While the Commission understood that the complainants strongly disagreed with the newspaper’s portrayal of a benefit claimant in this light, it did not consider that readers would be misled into understanding that all those receiving incapacity benefits behaved in this fashion or were merely “lazy”. As such, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code on this point.
Umm, so the constant barrage of hatred towards benefits claimants aren't misleading readers into thinking this way... Please have a think, just for  a moment, what the average Joe in the street thinks when they hear the phrase "benefits claimant" these days. Do you think it's thoughts of a disabled person being helped, or do you think it's more likely to raise anger in him about those "scroungers"?


The Commission understood that they strongly disagreed with the newspaper’s stance on benefits and found that they repeatedly implied that all benefit claimants were “scroungers”. However, it made clear that the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) did not cover references to groups or categories but rather to references to particular individuals. Given that the article referred to figures of those claiming incapacity benefits and employment and support allowance generally, rather than a particular named individual, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code.

I was unaware of this in the code. I didn't realise that it's O.K for newspapers to discriminate against groups of people, just so long as it's not against an individual. I feel loads better knowing that now. No wonder racism is alive and well again in our society.

 The article mentioned statistics provided by the DWP. The daily mail's interpretation of DWP statistics have been found to be misleading time and again by organisations such as Full Fact, although in addition, the DWP have also been in hot water for the way they present their facts to newspapers too. One thing that they clearly aren't taking into account is short term claims, which many of the conditions on their list seem to be, but they haven't said they are all long term claims either, so with just implying it, they get away without being pulled up for false information. I don't know if that one is the fault of the DWP or the paper though.

My feelings on the result of my case against the Daily Mail are mixed. On the one hand, I feel reassured by the PCC. They kept me in the loop with what was happening, from the time of my claim until now. They sent a long and thorough explanation of their findings, and dealt with it all professionally and with courtesy to my feelings. However, my issue is more with what it's apparently O.K for the newspapers to do. Until newspapers have the "news" part removed from their description, and it's made clearer to the general public that they are actually "scandal and hype papers", then the public wont stand in the way of disabled-bashing.

How to nominate TBoB for The Pride of Britain Awards

The Pride of Britain awards 2011 are now accepting nominations. If like me, you would like to nominate The Broken of Britain for an award, then here's how:

Go to http://www.prideofbritain.com/contentPages/forms/Nomination.aspx

Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and fill in the form as follows:

Name of your unsung hero:
 The Broken of Britain- founders Kaliya Franklin and Rhydian Fon James

Address of your unsung hero:
  http://thebrokenofbritain.blogspot.com/

Contact number of your unsung hero:
thebrokenofbritain@gmail.com

Why do they deserve the award:
  (see below)

Then fill in your own name and details in the final sections.  

So, why do The Broken of Britain deserve the award?
  Please feel free to address this question on the nomination form in your own words, but I thought this would be a good opportunity to tell anyone unfamiliar with The Broken Of Britain, about the amazing work that they do...

 

The Broken of Britain is a non-partisan UK disability campaign, founded by Kaliya Franklin and Rhydian Fon James.  Kali and Rhydian do amazing work, and also have the valuable help of volunteers  Sue Marsh, Lisa Ellwood, Melissa Smith, Helly Copeland, and Emma Crees .  Newspaper articles, radio and television interviews, a support forum, support on twitter and a facebook group, and tireless campaigning are all part of the unpaid job for these amazing people.   This is a terrifying time for disabled people, with disability benefits being cut and dramatically changed, and disability hate crime on the increase, and the Broken of Britain are always there to help and to support disabled people, no matter what their situation or distress. During the recent riots in London and surrounding areas, Kali set up a unit of support on twitter, reaching out to any disabled people who were feeling especially vulnerable through their lack of mobility while the rioting was going on close to their homes.  Kaliya, Rhydian and all of the volunteers are all ill/disabled themselves, often putting their health at risk to help others. The Broken Of Britain campaigns against the injustices that disabled people are facing, and breaks down the wall of isolation that so many disabled people find themselves in. If anyone deserves a Pride of Britain award, its The Broken of Britain.

Applying the WCA to the real world...

This is a personal example of something that happened just a few days ago:

   I had a doctors appointment at my local surgery. When I went in, we were told that my appointment was in an upstairs room. My husband explained that I can't use a staircase without facing the exhaustion and indignity of shuffling up/down on my bum. "Not a problem", came the reply, "there's a lift for the disabled." This, I freely admit, is a reasonable adaptation for them to have made to create access for the disabled, and I have no gripe with the surgery. Unfortunately, people with disabilities don't fit neatly into little boxes where we all face the same limitations in the same way. I can't use a lift, because my main symptoms are dizziness, unsteadiness, and losses of consciousness. The lurching movement of a lift leaves me incredibly ill for hours after using one, and on more occasions than not, has led to another loss of consciousness. Thankfully, on this occasion I was incredibly lucky. The doctor that I was booked in to see was absolutely wonderful, and she smoothly took over the situation and led me to an empty office downstairs for me to have my appointment.

 Bringing the topic back to more general terms, my point is that many people see disability in a very black and white way, and I've heard on more than one occasion, people saying that they can't see why the disabled can't just work in places where there is disabled access. It really doesn't take into account the following:
Just how rare that 'standard' disabled access is,
The nature of people's disabilities,
The nature of varying symptoms of illness,
The nature of life outside computer generated tick boxes.
That you can't pick and choose your hours to be well enough to work.

The government has employed Atos Healthcare, a branch of a worldwide Information Technology corporation, to carry out WCA's (Work Capability Assessments). The government have employed them for £100million/ annually. Atos Healthcare has received numerous complaints and a poor reputation thanks to the 'tick box' nature of their assessments and the brusque way that many of the employees treat claimants. However, the DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) and JSP (Job Centre Plus) should share some of this criticism, as they are the ones in control of making the final decision for each persons claim, and have been found to be taking the advice of Atos employees over and above that of a claimants medical specialist or GP.

 Just one of the many problems with the new assessment, is that the forms now use the term "mobilise" instead of walking. So, it asks if you can mobilise yourself 50 metres on level ground. You may be able to do this in a wheelchair if unable to do it walking. The next question asks if you can mount or ascend two steps with the use of a handrail, but without the assistance of another person. Seems fair and straightforward so far? Not quite. There are many people who need to use a wheelchair for some tasks but are able to manage a couple of steps without a wheelchair. They may be able to answer 'yes' to being able to mobilise themselves 50 metres in a wheelchair. They may also be able to answer 'yes' to managing a couple of steps on foot without assistance from another person. However, if they are faced with the steps on the same outing as the 50 metres, then whilst they may be able to get themselves up those couple of steps, moving a wheelchair or mobility scooter up those steps is a different matter entirely. The WCA is a simple tick box system which doesn't take into account the real problems faced by disabled people in everyday situations.

 A bigger problem, however, is this part of the first question: can you mobilise yourself 50 metres on level ground? This entirely dismisses the realities of the outside world, where very rarely will you come across 'level ground'. The entire questionnaire seems to make a huge incorrect assumption: that the workplace is accessible to disabled people.  My examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

Parliament's own report on ESA and the Work Capability Assessment highlights very worrying problems within the WCA, some of which I highlighted in my previous post. Their own summary rounds it up in a nutshell: "It is vital that the Government's objectives are firmly supported by the reassessment process, and by the WCA in particular, but at the moment we are not completely convinced that it does this."
Hmm, inspires real confidence, doesn't it?

Throughout the paper, conclusions have been made that acknowledge concerning errors within the system, and assurances that they will be put right. Unfortunately, it states in very few instances how they will be put right. On one of the few instances that a suggestion for improvement was made, it discusses this change beginning 4 years from now:

"We remain concerned about whether there are sufficient levers within the DWP contract with Atos to ensure that Atos consistently gets the assessment right first time. We therefore recommend that, when the contract is re-let in 2015 and in future contracts for other medical assessments, DWP reviews performance indicators, with significant financial penalties built in if standards are not met."

The outcome of the assessments to date, are that 40% of the decisions were appealed, and 40% of those proved Atos' assessments incorrect. This is a huge amount to be getting wrong, and only accounts for those who not only felt that the decision was wrong, but were also willing to put themselves through the stress and upset of an appeal. If nothing is done to make the WCA more accurate, the appeals are likely to remain at this level, costing the taxpayer £50 million/year, and putting vulnerable ill people through unwarranted stress.

ESA: The abyss between the parliamentary report, and the press release.

Following the DWP's press release on 26th July,(here), these headlines hit the newspapers:


"The shirking classes: Just 1 in 14 incapacity claimants is unfit to work" Daily Mail

"Nine in ten claiming sick benefit are fit to work" The Sun

"Nine out of 10 sickness benefit claimants are judged fit to work" Telegraph

and, the most disgusting of the lot:
"sick benefits: 75% are faking" Express

The wording in the DWP press release is:

"New statistics published by DWP today show that over a third (39 per cent) of those who claim Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) are assessed as fit for work. "

Although this statistic (unlike the disgusting newspaper headlines) is more accurate, it is also incredibly misleading without further explanation. Within the parliamentary paper from just days before the press release, there was much discussion from parliament and the DWP about how they recognised that disabled people were being the targets of prejudice and how they were aware that they needed to be far more thorough with how they released information to the press.

In fact, section 2-40 of the parliamentary paper, had this to say:

"Sections of the media routinely use pejorative language, such as "work-shy" or "scrounger", when referring to incapacity benefit claimants. We strongly deprecate this and believe that it is irresponsible and inaccurate. The duty on the state to provide adequate support through the benefits system for people who are unable to work because of a serious health condition or illness is a fundamental principle of British society. Portraying the reassessment of incapacity benefit claimants as some sort of scheme to "weed out benefit cheats" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Government's objectives."

In addition to this, nowhere in the press release is it mentioned that 40% of claimants appeal the decision, of which a further 40% win on appeal. Nor is it mentioned that there are numerous problems identified from the new ESA tests, all of which are discussed in the
Parliamentary Paper (July 2011)

Section 2-39 of the parliamentary report reads:   "The Minister stressed that the Government had played no part in feeding media stories which referred to benefit claimants being "work-shy" or "scroungers". There was a statutory requirement on the Department periodically to release official statistics. When publishing these figures, the Government had "one single consistent narrative, which is that there are people there with the potential to get back into work, and through the Work Programme there will be specialist help for them to do so. That is a message I stand by four square." The Government could not "control the editorial approach of the tabloids" and he was often "bemused" by the stories which ran, but he had had "a number of conversations with people in the media about the need for care in this area".

Looks like that's sorted it then! Unlike the Minister, I don't feel "bemused" by the stories. I feel frustration, anger, upset and fear at the increasing incitement to disability hatred that is not only coming from the daily newspapers, but has been rubbing off on the general public for quite some time now.

It is important to mention here, that government statistics published in June of this year  (here) state that 0.3% of incapacity benefit claimants are fraudulent.

In section 2-25 of July's parliamentary paper, it is noted that "Claimants also sometimes felt that being found fit for work in the WCA equated to being told that they did not have a health condition. Professor O'Donnell of Atos Healthcare agreed that this was an issue: One thing that would make a difference would be if we could find a way of explaining to people that failure to be awarded ESA is not the same as being classed as a malingerer, someone who does not have a disability or someone who is not ill. I think we need to get that across very clearly." 

Unless you have a personal interest in what is happening in the benefits system, then it's highly unlikely that you will read any parts of the related parliamentary papers, so why is this kind of thing only being voiced in these papers, and not in government speeches or the press releases??.

Section 2-18  of July's parliamentary paper states "We support the Government's objectives of helping people with disabilities and long-term health conditions to move back into work, whilst continuing to provide adequate support for people who have limited capability for work or are unable to work" 

Note the part that I've highlighted, it states that the people that they are trying to move back into work do have disabilities and long term health conditions.

Later, it is mentioned that "A suspicion persists that the only objective of the Government is to save money...

The Minister for Employment told us that...the reassessment is not a savings measure."

  Forgive me if I firmly believe that the Minister for Employment might not be being entirely truthful here. If it really isn't a savings measure, then why aren't the government making any effort whatsoever to put right the prejudice and false rumours that the general public have been spoon fed? If this assessment really is to try and help those people with disabilities who might be able to undertake some kind of work, to get back into work, then why are we discussing the workplace, rather than offering support to enable people to do some work from home, where those that are able to, will be more likely to be able to manage home working than working in an environment where disability isn't accommodated? If it's not about money, then why aren't patients written reports from specialists being taken into account as much as reports from Atos, where a physiotherapist could be assessing a mental health condition, for example? If it's not about money, why aren't the government telling the public the real situation with disabled people, instead of turning the other way whilst disabled people are increasingly being treated as scum in society?

My view, is that it's because that would serve them no purpose. If they have the public's backing to dramatically cut benefits, services and lifelines to disabled people, then it makes their job a heck of a lot easier. So,

...best not to mention how their ESA review highlighted endless problems, not least about how it repeatedly puts people in the wrong group, leaving vulnerable people without a life line, because that might make the general public question the scrounger belief that they have of disabled people.

...best not to mention that the CAB have discovered that the assessments are hurried, and the claimants aren't listened to properly in many examples.

...best not to mention that they admit themselves in the July parliamentary paper that
" We remain concerned about whether there are sufficient levers within the DWP contract with Atos to ensure that Atos consistently gets the assessment right first time. We therefore recommend that, when the contract is re-let in 2015 and in future contracts for other medical assessments, DWP reviews the performance indicators, with significant financial penalties built in if standards are not met." as 2015 is only 4 years away, so no worries if vulnerable people lose essential lifelines in that time.

...best not to mention that Professor Harrington, one of the people who created the ESA test, has expressed concern to the government that although the decision makers are supposed to take into account not just Atos' report, but also the questionnaire and the claimants own doctors and specialist reports, that he is concerned that the decision makers are merely "rubber stamping" the Atos advice, and only deviate from it in about 2% of cases.

...best not to mention that the cost of appeals to the taxpayer is around £50m a year

...best not to mention what was said in section 7-191:

"It should be borne in mind that, although a claimant may be found "fully fit for work" and moved on to JSA, they may still have scored 12 points in the WCA and have a health condition which continues to have a significant impact on them. In this respect, they will not be very different from someone who scored 15 points and was found to have a limited capability for work. There may also be claimants who have been found fit for work in the WCA while their GP is still signing them off work on the grounds of ill health."

...best not to mention that no-one is tracking what is happening to the people that are moved onto JSA, or the 37% of claimants who remove themselves from the entire stressful process.

...best not to mention section 201, either: 

"In almost all of the discussion of the Government's plans, the emphasis is on getting the claimant ready to go back to work. However, the Government will only achieve this laudable aim if employers are willing to employ someone who might have been on incapacity benefit and out of work for some time and who might still have substantial health issues. This will require a great deal of co-operation and change of attitude from many employers."

But most of all, it really is best not to mention section 203:

"It is important for claimants, Work Programme providers and the overall efficiency of the system that the decision on whether an individual is fit for and capable of work is accurate the first time it is made. Our central conclusion is that the assessment process, as it is designed at the moment, does not accurately assess claimants' employability and needs in the workplace. "

Nah, let's just make a press release saying it's all going well and that 39% of claimants are actually fit for work. That sounds better, eh?

The far reaching consequences of slack press regulations

During the Prime Minister's questions yesterday, Mr.Cameron said "If you are leader of a political party, you do try to win over the media." A fair enough statement, it seems, but as more information comes to light, this troubles me. The nature of the link between the government and the media isn't yet entirely clear during the ongoing investigations of the hacking scandal, but whatever the outcome of investigated wrongdoing, it's clear that in general terms, the link is a strong one.

The general public rely on the newspapers to inform them of the news. It's very apparent that many people believe most, if not all, of what they read in the papers. In reality, the media have the freedom to spin statistics beyond recognition, and to dredge up rare examples of scandal and to present them as the norm'. On the occasions that they are wrist-slapped by the PCC for misinforming the public, they are told to print a correction - this is usually made in the form of a one-lined correction on a page near the back of the paper, which is a feeble and inept way of putting right what was often a front page spread of misinformation.

It is convenient for the media to be producing incorrect statistics that evoke rising anger towards disability benefit claimants at a time when the conservatives are pushing strongly to make enormous cuts in disability lifeline services and benefits (25% of the total cuts are being made toward 3% of the population).  I'm not suggesting that the government are giving false statistics to the media, but I am suggesting that things are becoming a little clearer to me now as to why the government is hesitant to prevent fiction from being reported in the news.

David Cameron spent much of his time in the house of commons yesterday, repeating that he didn't feel that it was a good idea to be "too heavy handed with press regulation." I think that "too heavy handed" is a subjective thing, and I personally wouldn't see it as being too heavy handed to, in addition to making the necessary changes to ensure that hacking doesn't occur ever again, to also insist that the media have a responsibility to produce factual news rather than fictional 'statistics' and news stories disguised as facts.

The fiction that is printed daily in some strands of the media is shocking. I always had some idea that the news was partly fictional, but since I started this 'Humanity before hatred' blog, it has shocked and appalled me to learn the extent of the deception to the general public.  
Is it really any wonder that so many people despise:

- immigrants because they believe they are all: here to cause trouble, get more benefits than the British,  given priority for UK based jobs, don't want to integrate into our society, are violent and aggressive?,

-people on benefits because they believe that the majority are: fakers, scroungers and scum, feel that the world owes them, sit at home with their feet up on their expensive sofa whilst planning the next of their several annual holidays whilst watching a travel programme on their plasma tv ?

-todays youth because they believe that they are: all mannerless, irresponsible thugs?


Although it's likely that the media will have some of their rules and regulations tightened, to ensure that such unacceptable and despicable behaviour as the phone hacking never occurs again,  it also seems apparent that this is as far reaching as the alterations to their regulations will be. I am sickened at the changes that the Tories are making since being in power, but even more sickened at how this is unopposed by a large section of the public due to misinformation and prejudice. This media corruption isn't limited to being the responsibility of the media and the Conservatives. I don't believe for one second that any of the political parties are unaware of the many sections of the media's incitement of hate crimes against the racial, disabled, immigrant and gay communities, borne from shockingly inaccurate statistics and rare true stories presented as the norm' in society.

I'm not naive. I realise that the papers are in competition with eachother and therefore feel the need to outdo eachother on scandalous news in order to make money. But surely it was always going to reach this stage? The papers have to keep upping the news to more outlandish headlines and content, so that much of it is now so fictional that it's more like fantasy magazines than actual newspapers. This has been going on for years, but due to the need to outdo eachother, it's got increasingly worse and is heading further in that direction. This isn't the danger in itself, it's that they still wrap their newspapers in fake wrapping of 'reality' and 'news.'

Maybe you think this is no big deal? My view is that when the public are relying on getting their news and facts from papers who give such misinformation, then our views of the country become based on this misinformation and prejudice. The way we treat and feel about others in our society are then based on this. I believe that this is a huge deal.

For this reason, I personally believe that it's time to put an end to the nature of newspapers as they are today. Maybe we don't need so many of them, or maybe we need tougher regulations to ensure that the news pages deliver facts and news, and the opinion pages can be the place to express the political views and opinions of the newspaper. This may seem like an outrageous idea, but I truly believe that some strands of the media are creating and sustaining such levels of hatred in our society based on prejudice and scapegoating, that to continue to do nothing will be inhumane.