Tribunals for benefit are very...

[atosarecorrupt]

Tribunals for benefit are very prejudiced and seem to think that intelligence and being able to express yourself, is incompatible with being depressed.

[Hidden]

probably ( the staff they employ NOT being the sharpest tools in the box ) they feel threatened by anyone who is erudite and able to express themselves other than in "chav" speak - after all - we must remember that the public perception of the sick and disabled is much tainted by the media and programs like "benfits street " - hence you are bound to come up against bias from those who ATOS/DWP employ - however if you are talikng "tribunerals " with " professional " people sitting in judgement

- i have found that on the whole this type do not like anyone who can express themselves and argue a case ,who has not had a uni education and has "qualifications " - its the same with doctors IMO - they cant give you answers - but hate it if YOU make suggestions about your own health problems ( but who knows our own bodies best ??? )

i too suffer from depression - and if these people DID their research they will know that MANY highly intelligent or above average intelligence people suffer from depression - ( mainly because we can see things as they are , rather than how the media and society wish us to see them ??? ) - but of course as we have been "stereotyped " as all being faking , feckless, scroungers , who are all fiddling the system .............. i guess we can't expect much sympathy or help

[Stilltrying_ in reply to Hidden]

That is a very brave post and a brave answer by muffie. I agree with what has been written. It is very difficult for us. It seems because most of us are caring intelligent people we expect the authorities to be fair; but they are more interested in reducing the numbers on benefits . It all makes it harder on us as we tend to have a big downer on ourselves anyway and feel undeserving in the first place so all of this can feed in. The only way I have found is to try and compartmentalise it in my mind; to know who I am and that I have never been a scrounger and who in their right mind would want to have to depend on the benefit system but some of us are in a position where we have to.

I actually felt a bit guilty last night because I went out for the second or third time on an evening this year. I thought well even though I barely sleep I will try and do this and I went to see a film with some people I know.(I literally had to lie down and rest all afternoon in order to be able to go and even then it was a terrible struggle but I made it) I thought "should I be on benefits ?" as i did something others would see as "enjoyable"; but that is me making some progress; they seem to make it that they will only support you if you never go out and are ill in bed permanently so there is no incentive to get marginally better because they will take the money away from you then.

They also think for example that because you can lift a box that you can lift a box for 6 or 8 hours a day in a work environment. If our problems are down to anxiety depression constant exhaustion insomnia fibromyalgia and so forth although physically we can lift the box it is not taking account of being able to do that in an actual work situation where there is social interaction and hours well beyond anything I could ever manage.

I think the system should be more flexible and allow for us making an effort but still needing their support.

Try and get advocacy on your side and don't give up.

[Catmag]

Hi, I fully agree with you, muffie & stilltrying.

I have attended 3 tribunals and been unsuccessful each time. I was a media/public relations officer for 15 years, the one thing I can do is communicate.

The fact the tribunal chairman said: "we are only looking at the period Nov 2012 to Feb 2013" didn't stop them asking more general questions. Because I am not dim, I could follow the questions. But I did have to remind him that some points related to a time outside the time frame he cited.

As a result the decision was no. When I received the full written decision and reasons for it, 17 of the 20 'findings in fact' were wrong. I felt they were just looking for an excuse to say 'no'.

It makes you wonder who is and isn't educated?

Who is or isn't qualified to sit on these tribunals?

I feel that many of these decisions are meant to dishearten claimants, but I feel angered by this tactic.

[Stilltrying_]

Completely agree with above. That is one of the reasons I don't use my real name on here or post on sites like facebook about it or use my real e-mail address; as I have been told that they do look on these sites and will target people who talk against them.

I do feel they try to dishearten you and just look to say "no". They then stop legal aid so we can get no representation. Very sad for the mentally and physically disabled.