Complaint to the BBC re Humphries #TFSOWWJH by @ClaireOT

Here is the text of my complaint. I am happy for you to cut and paste it in whole or in part in order to submit your own complaint. Let’s share out the spoons…

“Beveridge… helped to create a different sort of monster in its place: the age of entitlement. The battle for his successors is to bring it to an end.” John Humphries, reported in the Mail. What is this evidence for an age of entitlement? It would seem that this is an assertion reported as fact- which is a real failure of investigative journalism in an age when in half an hour I have researched the facts regarding this issue in the UK today.

Humphries visits Cardiff in the documentary, and notes “one in four people of working age in this area are now living on benefits”. (The figure was 24% as of February 2011). He doesn’t mention is it is quite exceptional for such a large share of working age people in an area to be on benefits: this is the case in only 5% of wards in Great Britain. This is a serious error in the form of bias, and a poor choice of case study for inclusion in such a documentary. The implication, that people are “swindling” the system, is offensive to people who are reliant on state support.

Humphries states several times that numbers of claimants of incapacity benefit have grown steadily. He is wrong. In 1999, some 9.5 per cent of wards had 24% or more working age residents on benefits. In 2007, before the recession, this had fallen to 3.7 per cent. This would suggest concentrations of benefit receipt are highly responsive to labour market conditions: the opposite of what is suggested by the ‘welfare dependency’ theory. This is clear evidence of poor research, factual inaccuracy in reportage, and bias in reporting. It is offensive to claimants of welfare support. Humphries visits a GP in the documentary. “What does she think of the statistics that say there are 2.5m people too sick to work? Unbelievable, she says. Literally unbelievable.” We all know how statistics, baldly stated, can mislead us and seduce us into believing our prejudices, our “evidence” from anecdotes are true representatives of fact. They very rarely are. That is why we use research methods to eliminate or account for bias.

52 per cent of people claiming sickness benefit (Incapacity Benefit/Employment Support Allowance) are disabled. We know this because they are also receiving Disability Living Allowance, which we know has a very low rate of fraud (less than 0.5%). Humphries has shown poor choice of question for this participant- one that reflects his bias, and which misrepresents myth and anecdote about claiming benefits for fact. This shows a poor standard of interviewing, bias, and factual misrepresentation. It is offensive to benefit recipients.

Among the rest of the sickness benefit caseload, receipt has been falling for years without the use of tough sanctions on claimants or benefit cuts – the opposite of what the “dependency” theory would lead us to expect. Humphries makes no mention of this very salient fact in his documentary- which shows poor standard of presenting, bias, inaccuracy, and gives offence. Lone parent employment rates fell from 60% at the end of the 1970s to 44% by the mid-1990s and then rose steadily, reaching 58% today. We can see that this has not followed the expected direction of travel were “a dependency culture” to blame. Again, clear evidence of bias, factual misrepresentation, and poor standards of presentation.

“In my decades of reporting politics I have never before seen the sort of political consensus on the benefits system that we seem to be approaching now.” Here, Humphries appears to be delivering a right-wing thesis on an imagined problem of “welfare dependency” within documentary format. It is a very poor reflection of the supposed impartiality and balance of reportage which I would expect from the BBC. In light of this, I demand that disabled people and their representatives, Citizens Advice Bureau staff, or other suitably qualified people are provided with the opportunity to make a point-by-point rebuttal in a similar time slot.

Many figures in this complaint have been taken from: http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/10/john-humphrys-is-wrong-on-social-security/

edit: To make a complaint, you need to fill out this form on the BBC website.

Anne Novis, MBE - Issues with BBC Breakfast Show interview #DLA #TBofB

I was interviewed by the BBC for the Breakfast show on DLA linked to the Disability Alliance initiating legal action re the consultation on DLA.

The crew came to me and did a long interview and filmed aspects of my home that indicated extra costs I had as a disabled person.

All well and good a great interview and interested journalist.

Then late in the day a man phoned from the BBC asking if they could use some of the interview on the BBC news, he asked me questions about my impairments which I declined to share publicly as I have multiple health issues as well as a spinal condition.

He asked how much I received in DLA so I explained about the two components and that my Mobility fund was spent on a wheelchair adapted car leased via Motability and that half my high rate care component was taken in charges for Independent Living Fund support for care so in reality I receive only £125 per month.

So I was shocked and surprised to hear him state I received this per week!

Also my surname was not pronounced properly , it became ‘Nevis’ not ‘Novis’ and the MBE I received this year was not noted on my name as it was in the morning.

Although he stated I had a spinal condition he did not state I had multiple health issues too.

It seemed to me the stance of the piece shown was different from the Breakfast show piece and so much was left out of my interview.

I had explained about the multiple impact of all the cuts on disabled people, the closure of the Independent living Fund, the anxiety caused to so many due to lack of appropriate consideration of our views on the proposed changes to DLA.

It seemed in the morning the genuine concerns of disabled people were to be heard but by the evening I became a burden too far as Maria Miller and the tax alliance focused on misuse and how ‘unsustainable’ DLA is, also the ignorance of disabled people not understanding the government stance which is oh so clear these days was also the focus by Maria Miller.

We have to ask why the approach to this information changed from the morning sharing real concerns and anxieties to the evening where the focus seemed to be more on disabled people expecting too much.

Anne Novis, MBE

Death Of A Message Board

Think of message boards, and most people have a similar idea. Its where
people with similar interests, be that bird watching, or tank driving,
go to discuss and exchange ideas.
A few boards are about people, such as the famous and popular Mumsnet.
Message boards come and go, but why do they come into existance? And,
more importantly, why do they die?
Its usually demand that brings a board into existance, and lack of
interest that causes its death.
So what happens to a message board that is hugely popular, filling a
role that few others can emulate, when the owners decide to kill it off?
 
This is what is happening to the hugely successful BBC Ouch boards,
described as the largest message board for disability related
discussions in the UK.
Its header declares "Ouch! Its a disability thing" and it very much is.
Unusually for a message board, it is very well mannered, as posters are
aware that other posters may have a disability that makes communication
difficult.
Additionally there is no heirachy, no playing top trumps of disability,
all are truely welcome. I personally joined with a broken leg that was
stubbornly refusing to mend - hardly a major disability!
Many join looking for people with similar conditions, or experiencing
similar problems. Their first post may be one of desperation, but the
kind words and assistance means they stay and become part of the
community.
And this is one major difference. For many of the posters this is their
only online community. They cannot deal with other sites, where they may
have to interact with people who neither know or care about how
disability can affect people. 
They feel safe and secure on Ouch, after all, the BBC will protect them,
and it does so through user-led moderation, and a pre-moderated phase to
discourage people from targetting disabled people with intent to be
unpleasant.
In effect it is almost a secret place, where people can ask for advice,
ask for support, debate all things disability related, and chat and
amuse themselves.
There are many professionals on the boards, available to give advise
about everything, from what to expect from treatments and the NHS,
education, housing, benefits, work to the best disabled sports venues
and which festivals are dis-friendly. This is all voluntary information,
given by disabled people to support other disabled people.
 
But the greatest strength is the feeling of community, the feeling of
having your very own "Big Society" initiative that was established long
before David Cameron thought it was a good idea.
One poster put it;
"It takes me years to trust someone. It takes me years to get to the
point I am at with Ouch where I can feel able to post and contribute. I
can't just move to another board and carry on."
They then go on to say;
"Over the last few years the sites I have relied on, and trusted have
all gone. Ouch is the only one left. I have no real life friends, no
real life support networks. I only have Ouch."
 For many Ouch is not just a message board, it is a gateway into a world
 that disability may exclude.
It provides a very valuable service.
A poster writes;
"My worlds just collapsed." and it probably has, because for many people
Ouch is all they have, it is an accessible place in a world of
inaccessibility, a place of understanding when so many seem not only to
not understand, but to be actively mis-understanding of disability.
 
Its seems that this active mis-understanding has extended now to the
BBC, who have decided, along with many other sectors of society, that
instead of equality of outcome, they will simply remove this essential
service.
Visit Ouch before it closes, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/
and post a comment to the Editor at;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/06/a_new_home_for_ouch_at_bbc_new.html
 
In four weeks we will watch the sad death of a friend, the death of a
community, murdered by policy and the disregard that disabled people are
currently held in.