Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Wait, these puits are coal mines no? You're raging about closing an inefficient coal mine? Have you ever been in a coal mine? The suck level is a 9.8. My grandfather ran away as a teenager to the sea just to escape a life in the coal mines.

Thats like bitching that they closed down the local trash dump becuase people used to pick through it.

Closing it wasnt the problem.

Closing it with NO replacement for the local economy in the area, which means no jobs for the miners WAS the problem. Ending up with a huuuuuuuge amount of guys who could work with no jobs to go to nor any hope of any.

Job training?

Wasn't given. The miners were left on their own.

So... you think it's the government job to provide employment?

If they are going to get involved with an industry that is the sole source of income for a town, then yes, they should do something to assist those who will be put into poverty and unemployment.

Didn't those workers get some unemployment benefits or job re-training? Or, was it "shut da door, you're on your own"?

 whembly wrote:

Didn't those workers get some unemployment benefits or job re-training? Or, was it "shut da door, you're on your own"?

They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have. It almost makes you think it was an ideological decision rather than an economic one...

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Didn't those workers get some unemployment benefits or job re-training? Or, was it "shut da door, you're on your own"?

They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have. It almost makes you think it was an ideological decision rather than an economic one...

In the short term... sure, it would've cost more.

Long term? Looks like ya'll did "okay".

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Didn't those workers get some unemployment benefits or job re-training? Or, was it "shut da door, you're on your own"?

They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have. It almost makes you think it was an ideological decision rather than an economic one...

I'd doubt that. Currently Jobseekers pays roughly one week's worth of wages on minimum wage (two hundred and twenty quid or so) every month. I doubt that it would have been proportionately higher in the Eighties. The Government was subsidising some of those industries so vastly, they were paying at least three weeks wages per worker.

What would have to be measured would be the economic knockon effect of the closing businesses and whatnot.

But by all means, don't let facts or logic stand in your own of cheap snipes. Most people rarely do.

 Ketara wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Didn't those workers get some unemployment benefits or job re-training? Or, was it "shut da door, you're on your own"?

They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have. It almost makes you think it was an ideological decision rather than an economic one...

I'd doubt that. Currently Jobseekers pays roughly one week's worth of wages on minimum wage (two hundred and twenty quid or so) every month. I doubt that it would have been proportionately higher in the Eighties. The Government was subsidising some of those industries so vastly, they were paying at least three weeks wages per worker.

What would have to be measured would be the economic knockon effect of the closing businesses and whatnot.

But by all means, don't let facts or logic stand in your own of cheap snipes. Most people rarely do.

So thirty years of paying JSA to thousands cost less than reforming the industry would have? Energy is of course entirely non profit in Britain these days after all.

Well the state subsidies to the mining industry to keep them open ammounted to approximately 1.4 Billion (in todays prices)
The miners stikes constantly making an unprofitable industry even more unprofitable, some campaigning for up to 30% pay rises
But to blame al the mines closing on thatcher is at best unfair. More coal mines closed under harold wilson than they did under Thatcher. 290 compared to 160, during their repective terms of office.

From debunking the Thatcher myths.

Thatcher went to war with the mining unions. But her adversary’s role is often overlooked. Arthur Scargill was the boss of the National Union of Miners, and what sort of a man was he?

In an extraordinary interview with BBC 5Live in 2000, Scargill reminded us that he was a Stalinist who adamantly supported the USSR, and suggested the Russian gulags - in which millions perished - might not have existed (prompting the listener who’d asked him about it to draw a parallel with David Irving’s holocaust denials). Famously, when asked how much losses a pit could make before being considered for closure, Scargill replied “the loss is without limits”.

On the eve of the strikes in 1984 energy minister Peter Walker put together a deal offering miners another job or a voluntary redundancy package, plus £800m investment in mining. He told Thatcher: “I think this meets every emotional issue the miners have. And it’s expensive, but not as expensive as a coal strike”. Thatcher replied “You know, I agree with you”.

Scargill turned down the offer, vetoed the expected ballot of miners to decide whether to strike, and, called a strike (Scargill later wrote about his decision in the Guardian).

Just a bit I found online.

I simply ask, why should a society allow itself to be committed to a grossly unproductive industries, that were dragging a nation down into poverty. A package was offered and declined by skargill without a ballott.

To blame all the woes on thatcher whilst neglecting him is unfair. Yes she had to enforce regrettably nessacey actions to save a nation, skargill was out for himself.

good points

 dæl wrote:


So thirty years of paying JSA to thousands cost less than reforming the industry would have? Energy is of course entirely non profit in Britain these days after all.

Irrelevant. Don't move the goalposts. You said 'They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have', which was most likely wrong.

The question of whether or not it would cost less to reform the industry or take other action than to pay the JSA is a different issue altogether. If you can't keep your points in order to make a proper counter-argument, don't make those points in the first place.

The cost of subsidising the mining industry at the time was in the region of 1.4 billion ( current equivalent) a year if I recall I will check with a quick google if I get chance.

 Ketara wrote:

 dæl wrote:


So thirty years of paying JSA to thousands cost less than reforming the industry would have? Energy is of course entirely non profit in Britain these days after all.

Irrelevant. Don't move the goalposts. You said 'They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have', which was most likely wrong.

The question of whether or not it would cost less to reform the industry or take other action than to pay the JSA is a different issue altogether. If you can't keep your points in order to make a proper counter-argument, don't make those points in the first place.

I said subsidise the mines, not the unions and Scargill. Had we kept the mines open we wouldn't have had millions in fuel poverty today. I am not moving the goalposts by thinking that the mines would have changed in structure, it was obviously needed. But yes, had we stupidly kept things as they were in 79 the costs would outweigh paying JSA to the million miners put out of work, but had we kept the mines and subsidised them to the rate we subsidise private energy companies today, things would be a lot better for everyone. Sorry if I was unclear.

I thought mines were the antithesis of the green power and global warming? Whats a good lefty to think?

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought mines were the antithesis of the green power and global warming? Whats a good lefty to think?

If it's a choice between mining and fracking I'll go with mining.

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought mines were the antithesis of the green power and global warming? Whats a good lefty to think?

If it's a choice between mining and fracking I'll go with mining.

Fracking is safer... for people and environment than straight out mining.

 dæl wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 dæl wrote:


So thirty years of paying JSA to thousands cost less than reforming the industry would have? Energy is of course entirely non profit in Britain these days after all.

Irrelevant. Don't move the goalposts. You said 'They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have', which was most likely wrong.

The question of whether or not it would cost less to reform the industry or take other action than to pay the JSA is a different issue altogether. If you can't keep your points in order to make a proper counter-argument, don't make those points in the first place.

I said subsidise the mines, not the unions and Scargill. Had we kept the mines open we wouldn't have had millions in fuel poverty today. I am not moving the goalposts by thinking that the mines would have changed in structure, it was obviously needed. But yes, had we stupidly kept things as they were in 79 the costs would outweigh paying JSA to the million miners put out of work, but had we kept the mines and subsidised them to the rate we subsidise private energy companies today, things would be a lot better for everyone. Sorry if I was unclear.

Had we continued to subsidise the mines (and other non profitable industries) we would probably would have gutted the economy. British coal cost more to mine than could be bought. But to suggest thatchers government didn't try and revive an ailing industry is also wrong.

Margaret Thatcher’s government inherited a coal industry which had seen productivity collapse by 6 percent in five years. Nevertheless, it made attempts to rescue it. In 1981 a subsidy of £50 million was given to industries which switched from cheap oil to expensive British coal. So decrepit had the industry become that taxpayers were paying people to buy British coal.

The Thatcher government injected a further £200 million into the industry. Companies who had gone abroad to buy coal, such as the Central Electricity Generating Board, were banned from bringing it in and 3 million tonnes of coal piled up at Rotterdam at a cost to the British taxpayer of £30 million per year.

By now the industry was losing £1.2 million per day. Its interest payments amounted to £467 million for the year and the National Coal Board needed a grant of £875 million from the taxpayer.

The Monopolies and Mergers Commission found that 75 percent of British pits were losing money. The reason was obvious. By 1984 it cost £44 to mine a metric ton of British coal. America, Australia, and South Africa were selling it on the world market for £32 a metric ton.

Productivity increases had come in at 20 percent below the level set in the 1974 Plan for Coal.

Taxpayers were subsidising the mining industry to the tune of £1.3 billion annually. This figure doesn’t include the vast cost to taxpayer-funded industries such as steel and electricity which were obliged to buy British coal.

But when Arthur Scargill appeared before a Parliamentary committee and was asked at what level of loss it was acceptable to close a pit he answered “As far as I can see, the loss is without limits.”

Falling production, falling employment, falling sales, and increasing subsidy; that was the coal industry Margaret Thatcher inherited.

She did not swoop in and kill perfectly good industries out of spite. Industries like coal and steel were already dead by the time she was elected. Thatcher just switched off the increasingly costly life support which had kept these zombie industries going.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd also take fracking every day of the week over mining.

Scargill is the scum of the earth, he is everything that was wrong in unions, he begged the soviets for money, he used unions funds to pay for his lodgings in London until 2010.

Vile piece of work. Supports Stalin and communism. Bastard feeds the propaganda of the right every time he opens his mouth. An affront to hard working men and women everywhere.

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought mines were the antithesis of the green power and global warming? Whats a good lefty to think?

If it's a choice between mining and fracking I'll go with mining.

Fracking is safer... for people and environment than straight out mining.

Seriously!? Methane levels in drinking water 17 times higher than normal, methane being released into the air, highly toxic waste water full of mercury, arsenic and other poisons known to kill vegetation and wildlife and earthquakes? Seems far more dangerous to people and the environment than modern British mining, where deaths are very rare indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eetion wrote:

Had we continued to subsidise the mines (and other non profitable industries) we would probably would have gutted the economy. British coal cost more to mine than could be bought. But to suggest thatchers government didn't try and revive an ailing industry is also wrong.

None of those things tried made any effort to make the mines themselves profitable.

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought mines were the antithesis of the green power and global warming? Whats a good lefty to think?

If it's a choice between mining and fracking I'll go with mining.

Fracking is safer... for people and environment than straight out mining.

Seriously!? Methane levels in drinking water 17 times higher than normal, methane being released into the air, highly toxic waste water full of mercury, arsenic and other poisons known to kill vegetation and wildlife and earthquakes? Seems far more dangerous to people and the environment than modern British mining, where deaths are very rare indeed.

Show me someone who's died from fracking. I'll show you ten fold miners who died from lung problems.

 dæl wrote:


I said subsidise the mines, not the unions and Scargill. Had we kept the mines open we wouldn't have had millions in fuel poverty today. I am not moving the goalposts by thinking that the mines would have changed in structure, it was obviously needed. But yes, had we stupidly kept things as they were in 79 the costs would outweigh paying JSA to the million miners put out of work, but had we kept the mines and subsidised them to the rate we subsidise private energy companies today, things would be a lot better for everyone. Sorry if I was unclear.

I'm not entirely certain it would have been enough even then. If you examine the causes of the the mines being unprofitable, a simple restructuring would have solved none of the problems. The problems being firstly that cheap Polish coal imports had slashed the value of the British coal quite considerably and stolen what little business for export that there was; the second that the remaining coal was so deep that at the technology level of the time, it was growing increasingly more expensive to extract.

These problems existed outside of the control of the government or the Unions, and a simple restructuring or other internal action would have done little to change them. You tend to note that only now, with the soaring cost of fuel and far more advanced cheaper technology and equipment, are the mines finally become profitable enough to open again under private enterprise.


Also, apologies if I was a little curt and snappy with my last answer. I'd just had an argument with somebody and vented slightly.

 Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought mines were the antithesis of the green power and global warming? Whats a good lefty to think?

If it's a choice between mining and fracking I'll go with mining.

Fracking is safer... for people and environment than straight out mining.

Seriously!? Methane levels in drinking water 17 times higher than normal, methane being released into the air, highly toxic waste water full of mercury, arsenic and other poisons known to kill vegetation and wildlife and earthquakes? Seems far more dangerous to people and the environment than modern British mining, where deaths are very rare indeed.

Show me someone who's died from fracking. I'll show you ten fold miners who died from lung problems.

This may be of interest. Miners are paid in Britain up to 70k a year, around 3 times the national average, and modern British mining is incredibly safe compared to a couple of decades ago, or China today. Miners are paid for the risks they are exposed to, people who have nothing to do with fracking are at risk of it's ill effects.

No wonder they're shut down if you're paying them $140K a year. Thats crazy.

 Ketara wrote:

 dæl wrote:


I said subsidise the mines, not the unions and Scargill. Had we kept the mines open we wouldn't have had millions in fuel poverty today. I am not moving the goalposts by thinking that the mines would have changed in structure, it was obviously needed. But yes, had we stupidly kept things as they were in 79 the costs would outweigh paying JSA to the million miners put out of work, but had we kept the mines and subsidised them to the rate we subsidise private energy companies today, things would be a lot better for everyone. Sorry if I was unclear.

I'm not entirely certain it would have been enough even then. If you examine the causes of the the mines being unprofitable, a simple restructuring would have solved none of the problems. The problems being firstly that cheap Polish coal imports had slashed the value of the British coal quite considerably and stolen what little business for export that there was; the second that the remaining coal was so deep that at the technology level of the time, it was growing increasingly more expensive to extract.

These problems existed outside of the control of the government or the Unions, and a simple restructuring or other internal action would have done little to change them. You tend to note that only now, with the soaring cost of fuel and far more advanced cheaper technology and equipment, are the mines finally become profitable enough to open again under private enterprise.

Those are good points, and I must confess my ignorance when it comes to the 1970s coal industry. Even today very few mines are profitable, although they are operating as independent agents these days which would incur its own costs. I just feel the handling of the mines situation was really badly done and has cost this country billions, the same could be said of selling off the social housing too, with the state now paying through the nose for private rents and B&Bs due to shortage of council housing.

Also, apologies if I was a little curt and snappy with my last answer. I'd just had an argument with somebody and vented slightly.

Honestly don't worry about it.

 Frazzled wrote:
No wonder they're shut down if you're paying them $140K a year. Thats crazy.

Pound to US dollar is 1.5/1, not 2/1. Still a good salary.

 dæl wrote:

Those are good points, and I must confess my ignorance when it comes to the 1970s coal industry. Even today very few mines are profitable, although they are operating as independent agents these days which would incur its own costs. I just feel the handling of the mines situation was really badly done and has cost this country billions, the same could be said of selling off the social housing too, with the state now paying through the nose for private rents and B&Bs due to shortage of council housing.

I'm afraid I'm not quite with you again on council housing. Or rather, I feel that the issue wasn't with selling off the council housing exactly.

You see, Thatcher selling off the council housing was a major factor in the housing and property boom throughout the nineties and early twenty first century. It was also contributed towards social mobility, as people rose to being middle class through the possession of property and all that entailed.

No, sale of social housing wasn't the issue. The issue was not building more to replace it, and possibly the entrenchment of and reliance on housing associations. Currently, the Conservative Government is only building 100,000 new homes a year as compared to an estimate of the 300,000 as a minimum requirement for our expanding population. The lack of new social housing means that with what exists being heavily dominated by profit-making housing associations, combined with a massive surge in immigrants over the past decade, there is no longer even nearly enough social housing for our population size.

The result being people living with the parents, house prices continuing to rise, impaired social mobility, and the inability of anyone who isn't a homeless lesbian disabled donkey from Bognor with two kids to get social housing.

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought mines were the antithesis of the green power and global warming? Whats a good lefty to think?

If it's a choice between mining and fracking I'll go with mining.

Fracking is safer... for people and environment than straight out mining.

Seriously!? Methane levels in drinking water 17 times higher than normal, methane being released into the air, highly toxic waste water full of mercury, arsenic and other poisons known to kill vegetation and wildlife and earthquakes? Seems far more dangerous to people and the environment than modern British mining, where deaths are very rare indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eetion wrote:

Had we continued to subsidise the mines (and other non profitable industries) we would probably would have gutted the economy. British coal cost more to mine than could be bought. But to suggest thatchers government didn't try and revive an ailing industry is also wrong.

None of those things tried made any effort to make the mines themselves profitable.

Thats the point. Successive governments had been doing everything the could to revitalise the industry.
But while the rest of the world modernised, with miners being replaced by machines and a reducing workforce. No such move here was made by the UK thanks to militant unions resisting change. Ironically its the unions power being broken was what was needed to save the coal industry on the Global market, but by then its no longer financially viable, for the UKs dependence on coal had been slashed, oil, nuclear, and gas had all become more important, and coal fired plants had stopped bneing the majority provider of power in the 60s.
If the reforms had been consistently mande, British coal could quite feasably have been a viable export on the global market still. As it was, due to nationalisation, repeated subsidies and outright resistance to modernisation killed off any realistic viability of this.

 Ketara wrote:

 dæl wrote:


So thirty years of paying JSA to thousands cost less than reforming the industry would have? Energy is of course entirely non profit in Britain these days after all.

Irrelevant. Don't move the goalposts. You said 'They would have got unemployment benefits, which probably came to far more than continuing to subsidise the mines would have', which was most likely wrong.

The question of whether or not it would cost less to reform the industry or take other action than to pay the JSA is a different issue altogether. If you can't keep your points in order to make a proper counter-argument, don't make those points in the first place.

The mining industry could not be reformed while the NUM had any power.

Scargill couldnt give a feth about the miners, he wanted to get rid of a Conversative government as he did in 1974. The tools for doing so was large scale industrial action designed to force an elected government out by making destabilising the entire economy.

Thatcher did what she had to do. Scargill did what he wanted to do, and was completely careless about the consequences.

Also in the 12 years of Labour government from 1997 to 2010 they didnt bother to rejuvenate the North in any way either. They don't care, and impoverished northerners are better than wealthy ones as they can always blame Thatcher. What is odd is that workers representation is worse now and in the last decade than in the 80's. Labour uses the TUC its doesn't care about the workers. It is far easier and more prevalent to get rid of workers by constructive dismissal now than when Thatcher was in charge, and that was Blairs doing. Where are workers rioghts now, practically non existant. You see for all their rhetoric Labour only 'cares' about the working class to hoodwink them into voting for them, while spouting off how Tory is the 'nasty party'.

 dæl wrote:


Ah that immortal line of "we are helping people by taking away their means of feeding themselves." It really doesn't wash sorry, we live in a country with a National Insurance scheme, should any of us become disabled we should expect to be looked after, it is the mark of a civilised society that we have a safety net.

Absolutely. But it should be a safety net, not a hammock. Also, I'm pretty sure that disability benefits are not contribution-based, like some forms of Jobseekers Allowance. And it is my belief that benefits should be difficult to obtain, precisely because the State's money is effectively held in trust for people who genuinely need it, or have we already forgotten the numerous cases of people falsely claiming over the past few years?

As I have said I am all for assessment of the disabled, but by professionals who have taken the hippocratic oath to do no harm, not a private company paid by results.

What do you actually know about the way Atos goes about its business? How do you know they don't use healthcare professionals? You may find this interesting: http://www.atoshealthcare.com/services/disability_assessment

Particularly this section:

Atos Healthcare wrote:
We do not decide your entitlement

We cannot give you advice or provide an opinion on the outcome of your claim. Our role is to carry out an assessment and provide this to the DWP in the form of a report. The DWP Decision Maker may use other information when considering your entitlement to benefit. We are not usually informed of the outcome of individual decisions and we have no targets related to decisions made.

Moving on...

The claim I am culpable for a suicide by being outraged by it is somewhat paradoxical. The "left's" scaremongering isn't what pushed these people over the edge, the letters they got saying their homes and only source of income are being taken away had far more to do with it.

Actually, if you read the articles you cited closely, it was the fear of the assessments that was claimed as a factor in most of the suicides. In one of the others, the man was having £30 worth of Housing Benefit 'taken away'. Once again, that's not insurmountable.

Yes a person with non severe depression can work. But what about the 800 MS sufferers declared fit for work?

Some people with MS can work. If they can, they should.

Or the 5000 with cancer, including 10 malignant brain tumors? Or the thousand odd with schizophrenia? And this is if they are able to find work in this country, which is difficult enough for a healthy person.

Difficult, but not insurmountable. Incidentally, I know a guy with a brain tumour. He sits on his arse all day smoking pot and watching pirated films, and you're paying him to do it. Now, he's never going to be a helicopter pilot (his condition has resulted in epilepsy), but he could work in an office or something, no question. If he could, he should.

And it is their housing and money, it's all of ours. The State exists to serve its people, not the other way around.

Actually, that's not strictly true. The State is an organ of government, which is elected to represent the will of the people. Those people voted to make the Conservatives the largest party in Parliament by a significant margin, with both the Conservatives and Lib Dems campaigning on a promise to bring the public finances back under control after 13 years of Labour cock-ups. It's not 'ask and the State shall provide', nor should it be.

Benefit fraud is less than one percent, Atos appeals are at 70% of which 40% are successful. There's a bit of a difference in the numbers there.

People don't appeal to Atos, they would appeal to the DWP, and it's no surprise that large numbers of people would feel that they should be allowed to sit on benefits instead of getting out there and trying to compete with ruthless fethers like me. Them's the breaks, though.

Albatross, I'm afraid I'd have to take issue with your positive portrayal of Atos. The company has a history of dodginess and successfully discriminating against people who do genuinely need help, and do play a role in deciding who gets it (regardless of what their website may say). Not a month goes by without Private Eye digging some dirt or another on them it seems. I've also seen issues with them represented in relatively neutral mainstream media (The Times).

Other than that, I do agree more generally with the broader thrust of your argument.

I'm not really portraying them in a positive or negative light, just trying to correct factual inaccuracies. I'm indifferent to them, to be honest with you Ketara. If they suck, they suck, and they'll probably lose the tender.

 Albatross wrote:
snipped for space.

You are correct in that DLA is not contribution based, but it is also not means tested and is given to those in work, it's not about sitting at home smoking weed, it's about the incurred cost of living with such conditions.

I actually know a bit about Atos assessments having been present at one, the HCP was a nurse. Nurses are not professionals as they swear no oath, DWP decision makers are also not professionals.
You may find these interesting.


People being scared of being assessed by a company deemed unfit for purpose by the BMA isn't down to the Guardian scaremongering, it's down the vast swathes of evidence the company is unfit for purpose. £30 of housing benefit may not seem a lot but when living on £100 a week it is a hell of a lot, especially when that £100 isn't covering your actual living costs as is.

People don't appeal against these decisions because they want to sit at home with free money, they appeal because they have no other recourse and need that hundred pounds a week to live on.

Anyways, my original point in bringing up welfare reform is that it lacks the compassion I would feel should be given to treating the disabled. That level of callousness seems to have stemmed from Thatcher's time in power and this idea of an undeserving poor is a dangerous fabrication created to justify taking money from those with little to give to those with plenty. Like a zero sum game where one side already has zero, while the other side has a number with lots of zeroes. Of course welfare needs to be reformed but there should be a far lighter touch when treating the most vulnerable.

I do have one question for you though, do you think we could have 100% employment?

 dæl wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
snipped for space.

You are correct in that DLA is not contribution based, but it is also not means tested and is given to those in work, it's not about sitting at home smoking weed, it's about the incurred cost of living with such conditions.

I actually know a bit about Atos assessments having been present at one, the HCP was a nurse. Nurses are not professionals as they swear no oath, DWP decision makers are also not professionals.
You may find these interesting.

Im sorry. People like me are not Professionals? I think you will find that I am. I attended university, I am regulated by the Nursing and Midwifery council. Any nurse employed by ANY company is still accountable to the Nursing Midwifery Council, to the patient and to themselves. The company/environment we work for is irrelevant we strive,the standards we strive for are regulated. Any issue about a Nurse can be taken through our governing body.

Next time you visit your GP practice nurse or district nurse visits, then dont forget to mention that were not professionals because we dont chime off some sheet of paper.

That aside...

Having people on DLA (like my daughter whos on high rate DLA before anyone questions my motivations), its not unreasonable request for a health check before handing over funds.