Autism is classed as a "disability" and "disorder".  My book shows it is anything but.  In fact more autistic thinking is needed to solve society's problems. 

Instead we have the scandalous situation where our disabling and disordered society is killing and injuring autistic people at a savage rate.  Life-expectancy is about 54 for people on the autistic spectrum and a suicide rate about 15 times higher than in the general population.  This is because society has become increasingly hostile to autistic thinking.  As a result there is more chaos and disorganisation resulting in massive increases in mental health problems.

The solution is to move away from labelling autistic people as "disabled" and "disordered" and to instead acknowledge that the reverse is the case.  In fact it is the lack of autistic thinking in decisions that drive employment, benefits and society, and in the way people communicate generally, that is leading to destructive chaos.  This includes our unproductive economy, lack of organisation in the delivery of services such as health and transport, and in confusing and deceitful communication that results in more and more mental health problems. 

We need more direct communication and more thinking free from social constraints.  That is what autistic people are better at than the general population.

If you want to find out more you can get my book for 99p here:

Ever since a client committed suiced whilst I was working at the CAB, I've seen the DWP doubling down such as to increase the risk to disabled claimants with more dying as a result.

In particular, the DWP will give no ground at all on what it sees as its absolute right to repeatedly and pointlessly reassess chronically sick and disabled ESA claimants.  It does not have to do this as all ESA awards are indefinite.

When the ESA (and increasingly now Universal Credit sickness group) reassessment regime is lauched a bureaucratic obstacle course is unleashed that even many fully fit people would struggle to get through.  Yet this is regularly cut loose against chronically sick and disabled people.  One false move during that process can result in the removal of essential subsistance payments enforcing destitution on the claimant.  Some can't take it.

Now there is to be an investigation by the National Audit Office because the DWP is so reluctant to share any information about what it knows ...

More information here

I've dealt with a string of cases where claimants have asked for an increase in their PIP only to have it removed entirely.  Probably the most ridiculous case was that of Vic Holmes who has agreed for me to mention him here.

Vic notified the DWP of a change of circumstances in that his needs had increased due to strokes.  The DWP sent an agent to his home resulting in a report being produced that the strokes had improved his health so as to take him entirely outisde of PIP eligibility!  Well I'm not a doctor but I had never heard that strokes could improve the condition of a patient.  And, even if it was possible, the claimant had clearly stated the strokes had caused him to need more support.

Furthermore, what came across as an opportunistic removal of an entitlement, was done at a time the DWP had been informed of the death of Vic's partner who had assisted him with all paperwork.  And yet letters continued to be sent to her creating the impression the DWP believed even deceased partners of PIP claimants still absolve it of the responsibility of proper benefits administration.

DWP Officials refused to put matters right until the Treasury Solicitor was asked to assist.  And Vic finally got his benefits increased as should have happened without me, or the Treasury Solicitor, ever having to get involved.

The DWP, if left to its own devices, would have almost certainly forced Vic through the entire appeals process (about a year) before his entitlement was restored.

Vic said,

The objective of the PIP scheme was originally stated in Parliament as being to save £1.5 billion per year.  For example in 2013 the House of Commons Library reported, "PIP was originally expected to reduce working-age DLA caseloads and expenditure by 20 per cent, giving savings of around £1.5 billion a year by 2016-17". 

So I asked the Treasury how this was being monitored because the key is the net savings figure.  I.e. the cost of the payments to Atos and Capita for doing the assessments and any bonuses paid to officials involved in delivering the scheme etc must be deducted to establish the correct figure.

You can see here that there is no monitoring of the real costs or savings of PIP.  Astonishingly MPs, and everyone else, have no means of assessing whether the policy intention of PIP is actually being delivered. That is because the real purpose of PIP was not the one stated.  In fact it is a scheme to take money off disabled people and give it to people who already have a lot of money, namely Atos, Capita and other over-priviledged people involved in the scheme.

The Women and Equalities Committee at the House of Commons has just published its report on Equality Act enforcement.

The report’s main recommendations are:

• Develop a ‘critical mass’ of cases to inform employers and organisations about their legal duties and make adherence to existing equality law a priority for all organisations;
• Move away from relying so heavily on the current model of using individual litigation to create precedents;
• Make obligations on employers, public authorities, and service providers explicit and enforceable;
• Ensure that all who have powers to change the way in which employers, public bodies and service providers operate use their powers to eliminate discrimination and to advance equality;
• The EHRC must refocus its work and be bolder in using its unique enforcement powers.

Committee Chair Maria Miller said:

“Above all, the Government must act on its own obligations. It must embed compliance and enforcement of the Equality Act into its most significant strategies and action plans. That it has not yet done so in its recent efforts to improve the quality of work – where stopping discrimination is so clearly an essential precondition to any improvements – beggars belief. Our report sets out exactly what needs to be done, and we look forward to hearing how the Government plans to act on this".

Full details can be found here

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued a report saying that 1 in 200 applications for legal aid for discrimination resulted in legal representation being obtained.  I'm surprised it's that high.  The Civil Legal Aid Gateway is specifically designed to be inaccessible as it is a bureaucratic obstacle course that even most non-disabled people would struggle to get through.  It was brought in to coincide with more and more discrimination by the Government itself, particularly in social security.