Conservatives across the world often take inspiration from each other and we only need to look at LGBT+ rights and significant coordination across the world to undermine protections for LGBT+ people and other minority groups. Those who directly oppose and attempt to install barriers in the way of those seeking an abortion are no supporters of body autonomy.

The need or choice to have an abortion can arise suddenly and from an unseen and unexpected change in circumstances. We shouldn’t be facilitating, cheerleading and bartering with those who seek to remove body autonomy and criminalise abortion and those who offer it.

If you don’t want an abortion then don’t have one, but don’t construct barriers and hurdles in the way of those who want or need one. Moves to restrict abortion will serve only to force patients to take additional risks by surrendering themselves to back room abortion practitioners who, although meaning well, may put the patients health and life at risk by performing the procedure or administering abortifacients in a manner or within a venue which isn’t suitable to respond to any unexpected emergencies.

History shows us just how much danger can arise from backstreet abortions. The criminalisation meant patients would often avoid seeking emergency medical assistance in the event of complication. This reluctance and the resulting delay could cost people their lives.

Thousands of miles may lay between here and the US, but it is folly to think this will have little or no impact here. The ‘values’ and zeal driving this latest attack on body autonomy are not restrained by national borders.

While the first piece of legislation in the UK which covered all disabled people was the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (CSDP), Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 introduced the notion of a disability register or register of disabled persons.

The CSDP introduced a number of obligations for local authorities to meet the needs of disabled people and for the first time set out key services and assistance which, at least on paper, disabled people could expect from their local authority. The Act, while important in UK disability history, did not see the mass empowerment of disabled people as its introducer first envisaged. Budgets were relatively meager and the impact of services provided was limited.

Fast forward 25 years to 1995 and we see the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) on the back of sustained and imaginative protests from disabled people who felt that the patchwork of disability related legislation did not serve them well, if at all. While some local authorities (predominantly in England) still have a form of disability register, this is more about the recording of care needs to allow the council to plan services and calculate budgets.

The DDA introduced a standard definition of disability as being "a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on [the persons] ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities." Amongst other things, the Act made it unlawful to discriminate against disabled people in connection with employment, the provision of goods, facilities and services or the disposal or management of premises. The DDA was repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010. Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 defines a disability in the same terms as the DDA and is still the definition used and with which claims are considered. 'Long-term’ means that the condition must last, or be likely to last, for more than 12 months, or is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected.

There is no formal mechanism in law in any of the constituent countries of the UK by which an individual achieves 'registration' or is declared to be a disabled person, or a person with disabilities. Some erroneously point to Personal Independence Payment (and its predecessor Disability Living Allowance - DLA) and say that achieving an award of those benefits are a means to allow the identification of those who are a "genuinely" or a "real" disabled person. Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is awarded to those who can demonstrate that they are disabled and that their disability gives rise to a need for additional support or assistance in order to carry out day to day tasks.

The application process for PIP requires disabled persons or their carers or advocates to demonstrate the additional needs the applicant has and to link them to various activities. Many applicants will also be required to submit medical evidence and will be called to an assessment or medical which is conducted by a healthcare professional on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Deciding to apply for PIP (or not) is a decision for the disabled person and does not mean the individual is not disabled, nor does it mean that their disability is not serious or has a limited impact on their life. The PIP application and assessment process is gruelling, can be extremely distressing and can have an significant and sustained impact on an applicant and their family.

Disabled people in the UK identify themselves as such and while they may have medical evidence which corroborates their disability and the additional support needs they may have, it would be wholly inappropriate and discriminatory to insist that a person proffer this evidence to be considered as disabled for the purposes of the Equalities Act 2010. There have been a number of cases within which courts have held that a condition meeting the definition above need not be clinically well recognised to be considered a disability. The Equality and Humam Rights Commission (EHRC) in the UK publishes guidance on the Equality Act and its Code of practice of employment which are regularly considered and held out by courts and tribunals as being best practice.

Section 12 of the EHRC employers code of practice sets out the steps an employer can take in order to introduce a policy of positive action in favour of disabled candidates. The guidance notes "it is not unlawful for an employer to treat a disabled person more favourably compared to a non-disabled person" and this is further explained in Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010 itself. Section 158 confirms that an employer may "take any action which is proportionate to meet the aims stated in the Act" as a means to "remedy disadvantage", "meet needs" or "encourage participation [of the disabled person] in activities".

There has been recent unpleasant commentary surrounding the Scottish National Party's National Executive Committee's decision to agree to adopt a policy of positive action. This policy of positive action will see the party change the structure of their party lists for the 2021 election in favour of BAME candidates and those candidates who are disabled. Some opponents of this policy have made a number of claims about the nature of disability and have referred to people in the ableist terms aforementioned. While it is absolutely true and wholly uncontroversial that in the UK, disabled people "self identify" as such, suggestions that those who are not disabled would be holding themselves out as disabled in order to rank above other member is nonsensical. This approach to the self identification of disability has been in place since at least 1995 and we do not have widespread misrepresentation as is being claimed would result. Some point to employers referring employees to occupational health, however this is to facilitate a discussion around what reasonable adjustments should be made and how the employer can support the employer by reducing barriers. Any access to medical records by the occupational health practitioner is secured with the permission and agreement of the employee. Requesting that prospective party candidates have their disabilities assessed would not be proportionate under the terms of the Equality Act 2010 and would most likely be held to be unlawful discrimination under the Act.

There is no controversy in seeking to increase the number of disabled people or the number of BAME people in parliamentary politics. The institutions of power should be broadly reflective of the rich diversity of Scotland's population. One in five people in Scotland have a disability and according to the cross-party One in Five project disabled proportionate representation in Parliament would see us return around 23 disabled MSPs. We currently have one MSP in Jeremy Balfour (Conservative) who has openly declared that he is disabled.

While the majority of this post relates to disability, it is a shameful indictment that of the 21 years of the Scottish Parliament's existence we've only seen the election of four BAME candidates. Two for the SNP in Bashir Ahmad (2007) and Humza Yousaf (2011) and two for Scottish Labour in Hanzala Malik (2011) and Anas Sarwar (2016). The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats have not seen the election of any BAME candidate in the 21 years of Holyrood's existence.

Read more about calls for increased BAME representation in Scottish politics at (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53322950)

While I sympathise with those who attach significance and importance to the 25th of December, I am a realist and have to look at the real toll this pandemic is taking on the bodies and minds of victims and those afflicted and their families and friends, not to mention the health and wellbeing of those who had to shield and those who lost their jobs or had to have operations and treatments placed on hold.

I was one of the approximately 180,000 people who were assessed as being at extremely high risk from COVID and asked to shield at home by the Scottish Government from mid-March to mid-August. I won't sugar-coat the experience, if you follow me on Twitter you’ll know I found the experience incredibly isolating and stressful. I set up a Facebook peer support group for others who were shielding, and we have nearly 460 members. The group has members from every corner of Scotland and while shielding has been paused, many in the group have all but withdrawn from their communities and significantly restrict their interaction with others to keep themselves as safe as possible. For many in the group, the prognosis should they contract COVID is at the most severe end of the spectrum with the unpalatable and sobering reality that they'll need intensive care provision should the worst happen.

The First Minister has been asked continuously if her government will remove or ease restrictions to allow families to gather at Christmas. The media develop, and sometimes stoke, anxieties with regular stories of Christmas plans being ruined, of depressing predictions of empty high streets and of course - stories of those claiming come hell or high water they'll snub the COVID restrictions "to safeguard and protect Christmas".

I don't envy the First Minister or her cabinet, having to take difficult and unpopular decisions while running the government and keeping Scotland moving during this pandemic. Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, it is nigh impossible to convincingly argue that the First Minister or the Scottish Government have been anything but clear on the reality of living under the shadows of this virus and the inevitability of restrictions at Christmas time. A time when families traditionally get together in significant numbers and remain in proximity for much of the festive season. During a pandemic this behaviour will allow these gatherings to act as a bridge of transmission and carry the virus from home to home, town to city, island to island and country to country.

As has been highlighted by the First Minister on a number of occasions, the Jewish and Muslim communities in Scotland had to endure lockdown restrictions during some of the most religiously significant annual celebrations. We didn't have newspapers jam-packed with claims that lives would lay in tatters if these celebrations were conducted during lockdown restrictions. We didn't have daily questions to the First Minister and Government over how Jewish and Muslim communities would not tolerate the restrictions nor were there plausible suggestions that mass disobedience would prevail.

The reality is that we will all be living under considerable restrictions for some time. The virus is showing no signs of going anywhere, and we have to learn to live with it.

It is farcical to suggest that Christmas is this untouchable and sacrosanct event which, if interfered with, will lead to restrictions being cast aside en masse by the populace. People will either follow the rules or they won't. We cannot claim that Jewish and Muslim celebrations can be conducted under lockdown whereas Christmas is a special case which cannot.

We either accept we are living amid a pandemic which calls on us all to make sacrifices, or we perpetuate the myth that Wham!, 99p tinsel and shiny baubles will keep us all safe as we all huddle around a turkey crown or nut roast.

If you received a letter telling you to shield in Scotland and you wish to join the group mentioned above, go to https://www.facebook.com/groups/164934237965550

Balfour’s amendment sought to force Scottish ministers to revisit benefit entitlement for those patients who were diagnosed with a condition or disease which doctors believe will claim their lives within a short period of time. The amendment read: “At the end of a period of three years beginning with the day on which the individual applied for such assistance, the individual is still living, the Scottish ministers must review the individual’s entitlement to assistance.” (Page 24, Point 69 on 1st Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 2 – https://rebrand.ly/8c25)

Kezia Dugdale the former leader of Scottish Labour branded Balfour’s amendment ‘disgusting’ in a piece she wrote for the Daily Record and called on Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson to state if she backs Jeremy Balfour. In the article, Kezia said: “Terminally-ill people deserve support and care – not cruel assessments to check if they are still dying.”

It’ll come as no shock or surprise to anyone that many disabled and chronically ill people (and those who support them) feel worn down and are in a state of perpetual fear and alarm over the many years of unrelenting cruel, degrading and punishing benefit applications, medicals, reassessments and appeals all to secure financial assistance in order to meet the additional expenditure resulting from their condition(s). This is but the latest chapter in the Tory playbook aimed at steadily chipping away at the moral fabric of our communities.

A recent story in the Independent highlighted that the public has made over 300,000 benefit fraud tip-offs over the past two years and over 87% were closed after little or no evidence of fraud was found. In 2016 it was reported by the Guardian that out of a million fraud tips made by the public, over 890,000 (that’s over 85%) were closed by the DWP due to no fraud has taken place. It is clear that the ‘benefit scrounger’ and ‘workshy malingerer’ narratives regurgitated by the Tories are having a negative impact on society. The Tories are pitching communities against each other and empowering and encouraging neighbours to ‘do their bit’ by spying on each other and reporting any anomalies to HQ.

In Scotland, we have a unique opportunity with the planned transfer of powers to Holyrood over PIP, carers allowance and a number of other social security benefits and programmes. We have an opportunity to design a new social security system within a rights-based framework which will put the recipient and their needs at its core. The Social Security Minister Jeane Freeman has been working from the off to include as many agencies, carers and welfare recipients in the design of the new regime as possible. We have all been encouraged to feed-in to the research and work being carried out and I myself have joined one of the experience panels which is concerned with designing this new system to be fit for purpose, fair and transparent and a system which delivers real and measured support to chronically ill and disabled people and those who care for or look after us.

Ruth Davidson the leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party (to give it its full name) goes to great lengths to try to convince the Scottish electorate that the party she leads is a unique and distinct party which responds to the needs and wants of Scottish society. Despite claims that she is a proud conservative on a mission to reignite conservative values in Scotland, during elections in Scotland her own party campaign materials were markedly light on the use of the words ‘conservative party’. We were told that the new contingent of Scottish Tory MP’s would stand up for Scotland but to date, we’ve seen the exact opposite.

I can say with a great degree of certainty that majority of us would welcome the fact that our terminally ill loved one was able to spend longer with us than initially expected and this type of move by the Tories to strip benefits from people at the very time they are in most need is cruel and dehumanising and has absolutely no place in a modern and vibrant Scotland. I am glad that Balfour has withdrawn his amendment but feel incredibly concerned that he felt it was appropriate to table it in the first place

A matter of hours after the referendum Glasgow residents reported finding neo-nazi and white supremacy posters and stickers attached to lamp posts in the Glasgow Green area and on the La Pasionaria war memorial opposite Glasgow Sheriff Court.

Stickers found on Glasgow lamposts and war memorial The twitter account Post Referendum Racism was set up just after the in the wake of the referendum to collate, archive and share some of the worst examples of racism and bigotry witnessed within our communities. This twitter account makes for very grim reading and due to some of the language featured, it may not be suitable to view in work (you’ve been warned).

While commentators like Julia Hartley-Brewer and Louise Mensch continue to claim the EU referendum had nothing to do with soaring hate crime, the rest of us watch as the hatred, animosity and contempt rise and create further divisions in our communities. The referendum did not create racists and bigots overnight, rather it provided justification for unhappy people to seek someone to blame for their low wages, dilapidated housing and a sense of disconnection from the changing world around them.

Over the years, the ‘foreigner’ has been a convenient ‘whipping-boy’ for Governments of all colours and as migration increased and the European Union expanded, migrants have been held out as an intolerable nuisance by many British politicians and administrations. Forget the dwindling resources, budget cuts and idealistic and costly ventures into our private lives by successive Governments; migration is the reason you cannot see your doctor or enrol your child in the fancy school at the bottom of your tree-lined street. You can no longer park right outside the supermarket doors, you have to walk to find a seat on your commuter train in the morning and heaven forbid you live near a modern high street with its smattering of kebab shops, Polish supermarkets and Asian sweet shops.

The world is changing, modern Britain is a globalised society which benefits from the labour and culture of people from right across the world and our European cousins have full and unfettered access to this country in the same way we do theirs and so they should! The EU is not simply a trading bloc, it is a community and we all benefit massively from EU migrants working in our essential services and our service sector. During the referendum debates we heard the soundbyte that ‘you are more likely to be treated in the NHS by a migrant than you are to be laying next to one in a hospital ward’ and it’s true, 53,000 Europeans work in NHS England alone. 9% of all hospital doctors working in NHS England came from another European country and for nurses (and health visitors) the figure is 6%. The devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do not publish NHS workforce data categorised by nationality.

We have been complicit in fostering this environment of finger-pointing by allowing politicians to blame pressure on essential services such as our schools, NHS and housing on those coming to the UK from neighbouring European countries. We have allowed Governments to cut budgets, close hospitals and schools, build less houses and give tax breaks to the richest in society while pointing fingers at those coming to the UK and contributing to the communities we live, work and study in.

Despite increasing migration being painted as a bad thing for the UK, EU migrants pay more into the UK than they take out in benefits and their contribution is valued at around £2 billion. Britain and its economy has reaped the benefits of being the “jobs factory of Europe” and while some are only too eager to view EU migrants as stealing UK jobs, record numbers of British people are in work. It is undeniable, genuine fears over the EU and migration exist but much of these come from the sharing of warped or massaged statistics, a perception of inherent unfairness around the free movement of labour and misinformation about how the European Union works. We should be educating people not manipulating them and exploiting their ignorance to push an agenda.

History shows us that Governments like a scapegoat and it seems in Britain some politicians are only too eager to perpetuate the myth that EU migrants are taking jobs meant for British people and are a drain on the UK. The EU referendum was an exercise in abject stupidity by a prime minister who can no more control quarreling factions in his own party than he can control the lies which fly out of his mouth on a daily basis. There is no suggestion from me that everyone voting to leave the EU did so with bigotry or xenophobia in their hearts, rather the minority who did will be emboldened by believing a majority of those voting with them, to leave the EU, endorse their views and motivations.

Migrants in the UK are political pawns in a never ending blame game and the sooner we realise this and challenge it, the better.

David Cameron’s dissolution peerages again shine a spotlight on one of the biggest political embarrassments in the United Kingdom: the House of Lords.

The revision and constitution of the UK’s upper house, once occupied chiefly by those holding inherited titles of nobility, is a political hot potato which has been kicked between political leaders of all parties.

Notwithstanding the removal of the automatic seating right for heredity peers, very little meaningful movement or change has been achieved in over 100 years.

The notion of formal Lords reform started in 1911 by the then Prime Minister H. H. Asquith and the removal of heredity peers was a manifesto pledge by Tony Blair’s Labour party in 1997. Despite a public consultation in 2001, Labour made no further reforms of the House of Lords in the following nine years.

Every few years the issue of Lords reform is raised in the media, followed by the faux outrage of politicians the length and breadth of the country.

The outrage fuels numerous Guardian articles, Independent columns, screeds of Daily Mail diatribe and a peppering of embarrassing TV and radio interviews during which politicians claims they support reforms and in parrot fashion (as highlighted by Peter Hain on Thursday) claim the only way to change it is from within (you’ve got to be in it to win it).

The problem is, you could add the most well-intentioned, honest and respectable person to the House of Lords and the longer they sit in the political sewer among the self-serving class, the less and less they fight for reform and change and the more they become ‘Yes men and women’.

The fiasco in the Lords is making a mockery of democracy and is damaging the ability for the UK to hold itself out as a shining beacon of democracy. In what is supposedly the mother of all parliaments, we have a problem, a massive cyst on the arse-cheek of democracy, which will eventually burst, and under the weight of public outrage we will end up with a two-bob revising chamber that couldn’t run a bath let alone effectively hold the government to account.

The uncomfortable red benches of the Lords provide shelter and a place to snooze for generations of former MPs, party apparatchiks, arse-kissing rich donors and a scattering of knowledgeable, deserving professionals. Scottish Labour’s new leader, Kezia Dugdale, has suggested that the UK’s revising chamber move to Glasgow. While it would be good to see an end to the concentration of power in London, I suspect this has less to do with including Glasgow in the process and more about rubbing its nose in the referendum answer delivered on 18 September 2014.

True Lords reform is essential in order to continue to garner public support moving forward. In an age of increasing political awareness, the electorate will not continue to sit back and let the Lord Sewel’s of this country enjoy impunity regardless of how well he carries off a bra!

In keeping with the Tories plutocratic vision for the United Kingdom, the sycophantic Pontificator-in-Chief Cameron has a number of opportunities each year in which to whisper in the Queen’s ear to bestow honours upon those who cut his hair, clean 10 Downing Street, work for the Conservative party, ex-MPs and, of course, those with a fat cheque book and who are blazingly fast with a biro.

It is worth noting that the parties represented in the House of Commons are entitled to put names forward for honours and out of the 10 political parties represented (having excluded Sinn Fein who do not take their seats in Westminster) it is only the Scottish National Party which does not appoint to the Lords and does not have representation in the chamber.

Of the now 826 members of the House of Lords, 26 of these are Bishops of the Church of England, referred to as Lords Spiritual. These members have automatic membership of the Lords due to them being Bishops within the established Church of England.

This religious preference has been criticised over the years with the Humanist Society highlighting that “the UK is the only Western democracy to give religious representatives the automatic right to sit in the legislature”.

Instead of being told we have to work within the confines of our political history and tiptoe around an antiquated institution, we need to start a national conversation focused on change. Instead of being told we have to work within the confines of our political history and tiptoe around an antiquated institution, we need to start a national conversation focused on change, a conversation that puts the wishes of the electorate at its core and is concerned with designing a second chamber, which is fit for purpose and installs accountability at the heart of the legislature.

An all-elected second chamber would help increase electorate buy-in by making these politicians accountable to the people and putting an end to the chamber of untouchables.

The current system of appointment is anything but transparent. This isn’t an issue which will go away, the Lords is a retirement home which, in the main, parks washed out politicians and political donors.

It isn’t colloquially referred to as God’s waiting room for nothing.

Read the right wing papers such as the Daily Fail and you are told of the universal outrage over a rising welfare bill, the disgust over widespread benefit fraud and universal contempt for those work-shy 'disabled' people who are a drain on the welfare system. The public are drip-fed carefully manipulated stories of injustice which by the time the hack is done with it has more relevance in fable than news . Take the benefit claimants strolling around massive, tax payer subsidised houses while you, the tireless City type make do with a small one bedroom apartment above a kebab shop in Peckham or the disabled people janting around London in Motability sports cars, parking for free and avoiding the congestion charge. Those sly bastards!

I am not a fan of the Lib Dems, come to think of that I wouldn't be a fan of any party that's willing to jump into bed with its opposite number and roll over contently with the crumbs from the table. We all know the Tories like someone else to blame while feathering their nest and of course those of their City cronies while swinging the axe to public services. I do suspect that despite his political impotence, Nick Clegg has had a moderating influence on the Tories who, I'm sure by now would have had the disabled report for reapings for the Welfare Games; the Tory equivalent of the Hunger Games.

More and more stories have emerged of disabled people being bullied, abused and mistreated by ATOS (the Government's 'medical' wing-men) at medicals for disability and out of work sickness benefits and a number of peer support and protest groups such as the Black Triangle Campaign and ATOS Miracles have appeared and give members a voice. Membership of these groups is swelling as more disabled people and their carers unite online and feel more able to challenge government policy and the governments treatment of sick and disabled people.

I am very supportive of any effort which brings people disabled people and carers together to provide peer support and advice while providing a vehicle and a collective voice to challenge injustice and extreme hardship caused by this governments welfare reforms. Many of these groups provide more support and assistance in relation to welfare reform than that available through official channels.

There are critics of course, there always will be, need I mention the self-styled guru of all things disability, Simon Stevens who's relentless insults and diatribe against disabled people and benefit claimants led to the Leonard Cheshire Disability charity ditching him and running as far away from him as possible. Simon likes to paint himself as a warrior, a guru or a Katie Hopkins type who is restoring balance to the argument by calling fellow disabled people 'fake disabled' if they happen not to be in a wheelchair and of course a 'Nazi' if they criticise him. Perhaps Simon is hoping to run for parliament as a Tory or UKIP candidate? Who knows, the only thing I do know is that many of his clients on his website don't consider themselves as clients at all and of course, he did 'advise' ATOS by reading a briefing.

Vilification of benefit claimants and disabled people is endemic, perhaps the government should just stitch on the black triangles and be done with it or bring in the Welfare Games to keep us at a more manageable number and remind us how grateful we are for all the 'pitty money' (in Simon Stevens words) that we get. Under a Tory (or ToryLite) government, things are only going to get worse for benefit claimants, disabled people and their carers.

A number of 'get to work' programmes have sprung up, focussed on finding any type of work for disabled people to carry out regardless of their needs, wants, skills and aspirations. Years ago, money was thrown at employability and there was a range of grant schemes available for those moving from benefits to work for help with new clothing, travel expenses, bridging grants and money for tools etc. but these have been chipped away at considerably and the nasty connotations with the word 'grant' have all but destroyed the good these schemes were supposed to do.

Companies fight over the right to deliver employability services and create and deliver support and service packages supposedly to ensure the taxpayer gets value for money. With a number of suppliers having come under fire for fraud, mismanagement and inefficiency; the privatised, over-zealous commercialisation of the process looks a lot less like the promised good value for money. In April 2012 the Telegraph revealed that in addition to the allegations for fraud against welfare-to-work provider A4e's Emma Harrison who paid herself £8.6million in dividends in one year, 114 other allegations of fraud have been made against welfare-to-work providers, the full details of which have not been revealed due to 'confidentiality' concerns.

Pounds signs are attached to every work item and every conceivable scenario and claimant interaction is costed to the penny, making it very easy and good commercial sense for the contracted corporate entities to 'cherry pick' the less complex and more lucrative cases which will enable them to hit target with the least energy expended as possible. The involvement of private entities in the delivery and management of public services is nothing new but the sheer scale of the work contracted and the absence of real safeguards and suitably sufficient penalties when things go wrong, makes this current situation unique. If private companies want to turn a profit delivering public services and take the praise when things go right; they should be expected to pay for their mistakes and stand by the service they have been contracted to deliver when things go wrong.

Although not directly related to welfare-to-work or employability, Atos Healthcare was paid £112.4 million in 2011/12 to carry out WCA assessments with the appeal tribunal bill of nearly £500 million being picked up by the taxpayer. Under the WCA process, Atos review completed forms and evidence sent by ESA claimants and either submit a report about the claimant's fitness to work based on the provided information or arrange and carry out a 'medical' assessment of the claimant to examine their capability to work before writing and submitting a report to the DWP. When things go wrong and a tribunal allows an appeal against a WCA decision, there is no penalty applied and thus no financial consequences for Atos, it is a win-win situation.

I am not anti-privatisation; I am simply against creating a taxpayer funded cash cow for businesses to exploit much to the delight of their shareholders. I think it is about time we restored balance and overhauled the entire welfare system, starting by demanding more from those businesses keen to jump on the taxpayer gravy train