Friday, 19 December 2014


If I do something and a person dies then I am responsible. It may be that if I couldn’t possibly have known the outcome of my actions then I may not be held directly responsible. However if, after I have been told that people are dying because of my actions, I continue to do that which is causing the deaths then I am surely  guilty of murder.

So since the first death directly or indirectly caused by an ATOS decision (who were acting on the instruction of Iain Duncan Smith) it is right that there is a responsibility on IDS and ATOS to stop that which is killing so many people? The lies made by ATOS about peoples fitness for work or lack of it are an act of gross incompetance for personal gain, and should be jailable offences.

That ATOS employed medically trained people to carry out the interviews can only be seen as a callous ploy to absolve themselves of responsibility even though such responsibility rests firmly on their shoulders: because they were pressurising the interviewers into reporting results that were at odds with the truth.

The deaths should be investigated under H&S regs and charges of Corporate manslaughter as a very minimum should be levelled at IDS and ATOS executives. Let us not forget the buck stops with the PM. They had all been told that their actions were killing people. They all know they are guilty of murder to one degree or another.

Our Government is no better than a whole host of other evil dictators who see their own lives as far more important than the people who pay them.

The key players are clearly guilty of manslaughter or murderer, but will they ever be bought to court to answer for their crime. Yes if we shout loud enough!


Anonymous said...

To the extent that this is correct, which I think it is at least partly, surely the medical people have a first responsibility to their professional bodies and only secondly to their employer?

They should not fudge reports to meet employers targets.


Mike Todd said...

You might also wish to ask questions about whether the interviewing doctors have a sufficient command of English to ensure that they can comunicate efectively not just with well educated recruiters but also with the nervous - even frightened - often inarticulate poeple sent fo assessment who may well find it hard to understand the questions, let alone give the most favourable responses.