E-petition rejected for blatantly dishonest reasons…

Yesterday I submitted an e-petition request which said:-

We call upon the government to compel Atos Healthcare to replace its current tick-box disability assessment system with one in which disabled claimants are properly assessed by qualified doctors as, indeed, was the case before Atos were appointed. The current system is demonstrably unfair and arbitrary.

Today I got a reply saying:-

Your e-petition “Put doctors back in charge of Atos assessments” hasn’t been accepted.

E-petitions cannot be used to request action on issues that are outside the responsibility of the government. This includes:

party political material

commercial endorsements including the promotion of any product, service or publication

issues that are dealt with by devolved bodies, eg The Scottish Parliament

correspondence on personal issues

***

All of which demonstrates a high degree of mendacity. What I suggested most certainly IS the responsibility of the government – they, in the form of Labour and James Purnell, fucked up the system in the first place, and Cameron and Co have made it vastly worse..

It is not party political in any way.

It clearly isn’t commercial.

It’s nothing to do with a devolved body.

Nor is it a personal issue – it potentially affects millions, now and in the future.

What it is, though, quite clearly, is an issue that this government does not want exposed to public scrutiny, or to the pressure of public opinion.

Not, to be honest, that I expected anything else. After all, this government has shown itself to be committed to the persecution of the chronically sick and disabled, at the instigation of David Cameron, aided and abetted by IDS, for motives at which we can only guess (not to mention being massively dishonest in their depiction of sick and disabled people), so there was never any way they were going to allow a petition that would give the millions of people whose lives they are wrecking a platform to express their disapproval of their methods.

This rejection makes it perfectly clear that we are never again going to be subject to honest, impartial, assessments of our disabilities, nor is a change of government likely to bring about such a change, as it was Labour who installed Atos in the first place.

Have a nice day – while you still can…

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “E-petition rejected for blatantly dishonest reasons…

    • Buggered if I know, Ralph, but I’m beginning to warm to the idea that revolution is the only answer. I honestly can’t see a successful, peaceful, solution. Difficult, though, when the elite hold almost all the weapons.

      Ron.

  1. Well I just don’t know anymore. Is it the wording? Since ATOS is sub contracted by the DWP, like the work camps (which they gagged) is there some slimy, legal wormhole that might get something similar accepted? Not really my area, but, I’m sure you’ve seen some of the e-petitions out there. “No benefits for non English speakers” etc. etc. Boggles what’s left of my mind.

    • I chose the wording very carefully – I always do when talking about Atos, it’d be foolish not to – and what I said about assessments being unfair and arbitrary was quite true and is demonstrated by the very high number of successful appeals.

      And, as you say, looking at some of the lunatic e-petitions that ARE approved, this looks like censorship, pure and simple, especially as the reasons they give are complete bollocks. A request for a return to the status quo ante is, in my view, perfectly reasonable. That they didn’t want to give people the chance to vote on whether or not I’m right speaks directly to the mendacity of the DWP.

      Ron.

  2. Are you allowed to appeal their decision? Can you re-word it adding their ‘excuses’ in the relevant places? Would not mentioning ATOS at all help?
    I’m maybe grasping at straws, but there seems little else left to do.

    • Nope, no appeal – you can’t even reply. The words, though, are precisely what I wanted to say, and carefully chosen so that there could be no allegation of libel – it was fair – and provable – comment.

      No, it was censorship, pure and simple, when you look at some of the lunatic petitions that they have approved, many far more critical of Atos than me. What I wrote when right to the heart of the maladministration of ESA (and DLA) – so they killed it.

Comments are closed.