Sterilise claimants urges racist treasury website

[chloe01]

I have been forwarded this letter below as well as the link. You won´t believe your eyes. It´s totally disgusting and barbaric.

 

GS

 

This is a single issue newsletter asking for your urgent help in getting a government website closed down. The site, set up by the treasury to allow people to suggest ways to cut government spending, is full of hate-filled racist and disablist suggestions, including the sterilisation of benefits claimants, the return of the workhouse and the forced repatriation of asylum seekers and migrants. Some of the site’s content is so extreme it may even constitute a criminal offence.

 

The Spending Challenge website at

 

http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/

was set up on Friday by the coalition government and features an introduction and video on its home page by chancellor George Osborne.

 

In his video Osborne tells visitors that “Your government needs you, please get in touch” and the introduction assures visitors that:

 

“A team has been put together right at the heart of government and their job is to make sure that your ideas and comments are taken seriously - and that the best ideas are taken forward as part of the Spending Review.”

 

Yet these ideas and comments clearly demonstrate how the demonisation of claimants by successive governments has succeeded in promoting open and widespread hatred. One suggestion is to “Re-open the workhouses” for the unemployed, the elderly and asylum seekers. The poster goes on to suggest that:

 

“To prevent the problem of generations of poor people, release could be conditional on getting sterilised.”

 

Another idea entitled “Discouraging those who do not work from starting a family” goes on to say that:

 

“Where NHS staff have identified that a couple or single mother isn't in a position to support themselves and a child financially, they should be advised to terminate the pregnancy (if very early on), or be recommended to give the child up for adoption.”

 

Other ideas include:

 

“Benefits claimants to work in sweatshops” which urges the government to also send the unemployed to Afghanistan as cannon fodder;

 

“Let The Disabled Community Forge A New Industry” which suggests that disabled claimants should grow and sell cannabis for a living;

 

“Employ Crocodiles in Benefits Offices” to discourage claims;

 

the self-explanatory “Stop paying JSA etc to drunks, druggies & wastrels”; and

 

“Stop handing out free laptops and internet connections to the unemployed” in which the poster goes on to say that “I worked fifteen years before I could afford to buy myself a laptop, some toerag who's never worked a day in his life gets it courtesy of the State.”

 

Even where the initial post appears to be an attempt at humour or irony, the baying mob of supportive posters demonstrates that many others take the ideas seriously.

 

Equally disturbing and possibly criminal are the huge number of racist rants being published by the treasury.

 

In one suggestion “Move immigrants in council houses out of cities”, the original poster wants the coalition government to “Tell immigrants that they are being moved to less expensive areas. If they don't want to, they can leave the country.”

 

However, in a subsequent comment, another poster responds with “I'm not sure that I want to see immigrants living in our villages - keep them in the ghetto's until such time as they can all be deported.”

 

Many of the suggestions target specific groups such as Somalis and the site is littered with the most ugly and examples of ignorance and prejudice, many so extreme that we are not prepared to reproduce them,

 

The Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence to publish material which is likely to stir up racial hatred. Benefits and Work believes that this is exactly the effect that the treasury website will have. The content may also be in breach of discrimination and harassment legislation. Whilst we do not have the legal knowledge to pursue this matter further, and don’t want to be accused of a publicity stunt, we hope that there are readers of this newsletter who will have both the knowledge and the sense of outrage to do so and that they will involve the police in investigating this site.

 

The site has a ‘Report to the moderator’ feature, but appears to be otherwise unmoderated. To leave the responsibility for policing a government website to members of the public instead of checking each submission before publishing it is, at best, inexcusably negligent and, at worst, criminally irresponsible. There are, in any case, so many vile sentiments being posted there, that it would be a full-time job to keep reporting them all.

 

If you are as revolted as we are by the use of taxpayers money to encourage racism and hatred of claimants, please consider doing the following:

 

Contact your MP today and ask them to tell the chancellor to close down this vile site, clean it up and don’t reopen it until it is properly policed;

 

Make a complaint to the Equalities and human Rights Commission at

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/our-job/contact-us/

[chloe01]

Links not working, if you want to see the sugestions made by people on this site, please copy and paste the link in your normal way.

 

GS x

[RaeUK]

Link'll work fine hunni. People just need to mind the gap...

Best wishes

Rae

[chloe01]

Link'll work fine hunni. People just need to mind the gap...

Best wishes

Rae

 

Hi Kelcou,

 

Strange thing is, I went in to edit, and the bloody gap´s not there

 

Ah well, you reminded me of the "good old days" on London Underground.

 

GS x

[Surfer01]

There are some valid remarks regarding immigration as I don't appreciate an asylum seeker and his family getting a house in Kensington on housing benefits yet born and bred britons cannot and then you wonder why people come up with these so called racist remarks. I don't think they are racist just stating fact in a twisted way.

As for benefit claimants various governments have given the people the perception that all people on benefits are lazy cheats. People then look around their neighbourhood and see a young girl with three kids from different fathers living a 3 bedroom house when they cannot get a 1 bedroom flat. This creates a lot of resentment which they then express on various websites. They see someone who is on DLA driving a fancy car and going on holiday twice a year. In their minds every benefit claimant then falls into the category of abeing a cheat. We cannot really blame these people for perceiving that all people on benefits are lazy cheats, but we can definitley lay the blame at the feet of every past government.

Even more amusing is the fact that many able bodied people are unable to get work, so what chance does a person who has a disability and is over 50 have of getting a job. In the meantime you have to put up with the stress of being harrassed every time you sign on.

Perhaps if we did not have so many immigrants, born and bred Britons would stand a better chance of finding employment. I say leave the website even though there are many unsavoury remarks as hopefully it wqill give the government an idea of what is simmering underneath and in the end may actually be beneficial to those on benefits that re genuine.

[Bustard]

Government’s Spending Challenge website now offers you comedy gold | Liberal Conspiracy

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/13/public-consultation-cuts

 

One section linked to a Facebook Group http://www.facebook.com/pages/STOP-IMMIGRATION-START-REPATRIATION-UK/130170200346957

 

Some of the comments on Osbourne's site were beyond parody , they were like something out of Viz Comic's " Jack Black and His Dog Silver " or " From the Message Boards " in Private Eye - " the on line community discuss the issues of the day " .

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Black_(Viz) As Richard Littlejohn would say - " We're going to hell in a handcart " .

Edited July 14, 2010 by Bustard
add link

[JonCris]

Makes you proud to be British does it not, whats next sterilize the congenitally infirm or lets say exterminate a race we don't like.

 

I seem to recall that when there was a crisis in Germany the Germans via Hitler turned on the Jews accusing them of their plight.

 

Pathetic bunch of losers what on earth did my fore fathers fight for

[Bustard]

Divide and Conquer seems to be what they want ? , I got some tokens to get the Sun @ 15p and I've never read so much simplistic bile in my life .

 

They assume their readers have a mental age of about eight , and unfortunately these nut jobs swallow it all ; hook , line & sinker - hence those comments .

 

Shades of Nazi & East Germany asking people to shop their neighbours to the Social ? .

 

Problem was the Lib Dem Minister was smirking about that site ....ha , bl***y ha !

[keldas]

People should go on and report as abuse those posts that definately are abusive and support the ones that help people on benefits.

[sam247]

Some of the sugestions:

"Create Spending Challenge Website": Create a website where the entire population of the UK can make absurd suggestions on how the Government can save money. Allow easy access and registration so that users can create multiple accounts to vote on their own suggestions. As hundreds of thousands of citizens will be sat on their computer, they will not be a drain on resources outside their own homes such as roads, police, oxygen etc. Saving money"

There is also a highly-rated recipe for "Beef and vegetable casserole", described by one visitor as "the most sensible thing I have read on this site".

Where is the TaxPayers’ Alliance when you need it? Why is the govenment spending our taxes on a repository of racial, sexist and homophobic hate? The BNP already has a website.

[privatehudson]

Where is the TaxPayers’ Alliance when you need it? Why is the govenment spending our taxes on a repository of racial, sexist and homophobic hate? The BNP already has a website.

 

They're probably too busy spitting their cornflakes across the breakfast table about the latest Daily Mail rant against the Civil Service/Labour party/Tony Blair/BBC/Political Correctness (delete as appropriate).

[JonCris]

They're probably too busy spitting their cornflakes across the breakfast table about the latest Daily Mail rant against the Civil Service/Labour party/Tony Blair/BBC/Political Correctness (delete as appropriate).

 

 

More likely to be Sun readers after all they ARE thick & there's lots of pictures

[Bustard]

that's the problem , received "wisdom" from the tabloids and the Express & Mail. . The Media has been progressively dumbed down over the last 20 years .

 

It's not analysis , comment or reportage at all , it's rabble rousing " journalists " going on rants , and imposing their prejudices onto people . It's just spin and buzz words/infantile phrases .

 

The idea seems to be to soften people up first . The three card trick ? .

 

The Daily Mail Dictionary a very scary world ?

qwghlm.co.uk Daily Mail-o-matic Daily Mail Headline Generator

 

The (New) Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project You'll either get cancer or this will cure / prevent it .

Edited July 15, 2010 by Bustard
qualification

[loan_ranger]

Cheers for the humorous links Bustard, I've only had the time to see the first entries in the The Daily Mail Dictionary

 

The reason why I'm so busy?I'm replying to the last email I got from the Press Complaints Committee in response to my complaint about the Daily hate Mail's scurrilous article depicting IB claimants as workshy, system playing scroungers.

You couldn't make it up.

Chris Grayling announces the end of incapacity benefit in four years | Mail Online

[rebel11]

'Every one step personkind takes, they take two steps back, thank goodness they are still evolving':grin:

[honeybee13]

Love the dictionary, thank you for the link.

 

HB

[Bustard]

Answers to Emails from Nut jobs .....not for the kids , but funny

RED RAG: Red Rag - Answers to some of my e-mails from right wing nutjobs

 

Have your say - Comment Generator http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/the-twit-o-tron/

 

I think you just click the button on the site for another " comment " , put some of these in on message boards and have the knuckle draggers frothing at the mouth : - ) ) - only joking .

 

Unfortunately these people will be allowed to vote in a couple of years .

 

The following questions were set in last year's GCSI examination

These are genuine answers (from 16 year olds)............and they WILL breed.

 

Q. Name the four seasons

A. Salt, pepper, mustard and vinegar

 

Q. Explain one of the processes by which water can be made safe to drink

A. Flirtation makes water safe to drink because it removes large pollutants like grit, sand, dead sheep and canoeists

 

Q. How is dew formed

A. The sun shines down on the leaves and makes them perspire

 

Q. What causes the tides in the oceans

A. The tides are a fight between the earth and the moon. All water tends to flow towards the moon, because there is no water on the moon, and nature abhors a vacuum. I forget where the sun joins the fight

 

Q. What guarantees may a mortgage company insist on

A. If you are buying a house they will insist that you are well endowed

 

Q. In a democratic society, how important are elections

A. Very important. Sex can only happen when a male gets an election

 

Q. What are steroids

A. Things for keeping carpets still on the stairs (Shoot yourself now , there is little hope)

 

Q.. What happens to your body as you age

A. When you get old, so do your bowels and you get intercontinental

 

Q. What happens to a boy when he reaches puberty

A. He says goodbye to his boyhood and looks forward to his adultery (So true)

 

Q. Name a major disease associated with cigarettes

A. Premature death

 

Q. What is artificial insemination

A. When the farmer does it to the bull instead of the cow

 

Q. How can you delay milk turning sour

A. Keep it in the cow (Simple, but brilliant)

 

Q. How are the main 20 parts of the body categorized (e.g. The abdomen)

A. The body is consisted into 3 parts - the brainier, the borax and the abdominal cavity. The brainium contains the brain, the borax contains the heart and lungs and the abdominal cavity contains the five bowels: A, E, I,O,U.. (wtf!)

 

Q. What is the fibula?

A. A small lie

 

Q. What does 'varicose' mean?

A. Nearby

Edited July 15, 2010 by Bustard
add another link

[loan_ranger]

In my on-going complaint to the PCC I will be sending a letter, I don't know if it'll fly or go down like a lead balloon.

 

Paul.

 

First this is what I received last week:

 

09/07/2010 Dear Mr Nurse,

 

I write further to my email of 24 June regarding your complaint against the Daily Mail.

 

 

As you will see, the newspaper has cited figures from a Department of Work and Pensions press release dated 13 October 2009 in support of its position. These appear to me to be the same statistics referred to in your email of 22 June. Mr Bannister has provided some further comment on the newspaper's analysis of the figures. He does not appear to accept that this was misleading or inaccurate, but he writes that your comments are noted and that he has marked the newspaper's cutting for future reference on this issue.

 

Before a decision can be made as to how this matter might be taken forward, I would be grateful to receive any further comments you may wish to make.

 

In particular – given that the Commission’s primary aim is the resolution of all substantive complaints wherever possible – do please let me know any suggestions you have which would help to resolve this matter to your satisfaction.

 

I would be pleased to receive your response within the next seven days, if at all possible.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Charlotte Dewar

Complaints Officer

 

 

My reply:

 

 

 

Dear Ms. Dewar,

 

thank-you for your email of 9 July and the attachment letter from the Daily Mail's Mr. Bannister (Mr. B) who, "does not appear to accept that this" (i.e. the article in The Mail (11)) "was misleading or inaccurate", in my opinion he is being disingenuous and is simply not correct.

Mr. B went on to tell us the Mail had used the DWP statistics released on 13 October 2009. (1)

 

I am steadfast in my belief that the Daily Mail has broken the following clauses of the PCC code:

 

1. Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

 

12. Discrimination

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

 

The Daily Mail 'neglects' to inform its readers that the medical tests for I.B. and ESA have two entirely different thresholds of eligibility. The Welfare Reforms introduced in the 2007 Act have redefined incapacity for ESA targets using a much harsher medical test, it was a different test for IB claimants therefore the Mail shouldn't be judging them based on ESA results, in the Daily Mail ESA test results are being used to vilify IB claimants. Is this not the Mail being misleading or inaccurate?

The Mail also fails to point out that, unlike ESA claimants, those currently on IB all have longer-term medical conditions, I would have thought that it would be obvious that when the migration to ESA begins there will consequently be a significant increase in the percentages placed into the ESA "support group" and the "work related activity group" than before. Is this not the Mail being misleading or inaccurate?

 

So having established that the Mail has commited a glaringly obvious disingenuousness by using wholly inappropriate statistics, I shall now show how they have used them in a misleading and innacurate way.

 

The Mail appears to have a complete misconception of the purpose of statistics saying that,

"Official figures suggest that only one in six adults claiming incapacity benefit may be entitled to do so".

Statistics are just that - STATISTICS, nothing more than a snap-shot, the 'agency' of a human has to analyse them correctly before drawing inferences or extrapolations, statistics don't suggest anything on their own - they have to be explained properly first, but the Mail didn't let this get in the way of a "good story" vilifying the ill and disabled. The Mail used conjecture to fit their scurrilous, "misleading or inaccurate" narrative, statistics can't do that by themselves, so they can't be blamed which is what Mr. B appears to be trying to do.

 

The Mail has ample resources for "fact checking" and "research" - there were also available some more recent DWP statistics released on 27 April 2010 (2) (available at the time that the article was written) which show that on average (since the introduction of ESA up until the end of August 2009) 2% more people were qualifying for ESA than the 16% figure which the Mail used for the article.

The mail also fails to factor-in the disproportionately high number of appeals and tribunals overturning "fit for work" decisions. Up to and including March 2009, 29% of "fit for work" decisions were appealed and 39% of them were overturned in favour of the claimant (3) thus reducing the true "fit for work" figure by 11.31%, or proportionally 4.41 % of all the 5 claimant groups combined. That's 6.41% less (thus far) than the figure the Mail used, is this not the Mail being misleading or inaccurate?

 

Unlike the Mail, a real statistician wouldn't make instantly negative assumptions regarding entitlement to benefit about "assessments still in progress" and claims "closed before assessment complete" ( e.g. "Official figures suggest that only one in six adults claiming incapacity benefit may be entitled to do so.") Some of the 37% of claims closed before assessment complete will have been JSA claimants forced by regulations to claim ESA after 2 weeks "sick", who have subsequently become well enough to return to JSA of their own accord (i.e.before their WCA was due - up to 13 weeks later), others will have been on ESA temporarily because either, they are self-employed but ill/injured, or persons in jobs where their employer doesn't cater for Statutory Sick Pay.

In reference to "assessments still in progress", I disagree with Mr. B saying "the remaining statistics suggest that this would have only a minimal effect", again I wish to reiterate my point that statistics don't suggest anything on their own. Using a figure of 10% for this group (as the Mail did), this could increase the successful ESA claims by 1.8% plus another 0.44% following an appeal/tribunal, so there's another 2.24% to add to the aforementioned 6.41% discrepancy making a verifiable total of 8.65% more people getting ESA than the Mail's conjecture would have us think.

 

Now to the subject of claimants deemed "fit for work", I am a volunteer advising and supporting ESA applicants and I have encountered a significant number of people with severe mental health problems who have been unfairly deemed fit for work by the so called "Health Care Professionals" employed by Atos (the private company contracted to the DWP as the Benefits Medical Adviser) who are instructed to disregard the supporting evidence of the claimant's GPs, Consultants etc. and instead to base their assessments on the computerised scoring produced by a program called LiMA (Logic-integrated Medical Assessment). LiMA is a rework of a program which was developed for the U.S. Medical Insurance Industry to reduce both the amounts and numbers of successful claims, thereby saving the industry money. LiMA has attracted significant criticism from the CAB, CPAG, disabilities charities and individuals such as Professor Paul Gregg (8) who was one of the main architects of ESA's design who recently said that 20% more people are being assessed as "fit for work" than was originally intended, although according to the DWP even fewer former I.B. claimants (than Gregg states) ought to be deemed "fit for work" when they are migrated to ESA;

"When the assessment for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), is applied to existing incapacity benefits claimants, our initial estimates are that overall, around 65 per cent will be assessed to be in the work-related activity group of ESA, 20 per cent will be assessed to be in the support group, and 15 per cent will be found fit for work.

These are working assumptions that will continue to be evaluated and updated in light of new evidence."(9)

 

The government has appointed Professor Malcolm Harrington to lead a review of the (un)fairness of the "Work Capability Assessment" (10) which is to report it's findings at the end of this year, however these flawed medicals are continuing regardless. E.g. Migrating I.B. caimants to ESA will be trialled in two "pilot" areas (Burnley and Aberdeen) from October even though Harringtons findings aren't due until the end of the year.

For more about the "flawed WCA medicals" see below:

(Employment and Support Allowance: a new harsher test Brighton Benefits Campaign) (4)

(Unfit for Purpose - Scottish CAB evidence on ESA) (5)

(CAB evidence on the ESA work capability assessment.) (6)

 

46% of IB/ESA claimants are claiming due to suffering a mental health disorder, I have found that a significant proportion who've been deemed "fit for work" were too daunted and distressed by the appeal and tribunal process that they "gave up" - I am also aware of several suicides caused by this stress. A great many already vulnerable ill and disabled people simply accept the phoney "fit for work" decision because their health would be put at serious risk by the lengthy and frustrating appeal and tribunal process, this stress is exacerbated by the prospect of having to "get by" with the lower £65.45/week ESA assessment rate for the 9 to 18 months which it is taking to get their correct rates on full ESA. Innocent genuinely ill and disabled are being punished (losing upwards of £25/week) by the DWP's scatter-gun approach which is currently being used.

Many sufferers of mental health disorders are dropping out before their medicals because they are overwhelmed by anxiety, and others will go on to JSA even though they are too ill to comply with the conditionality and sanctions of this benefit, thus people in these groups are ending up outside of the system altogether and receive neither the support or income they need.

 

With the introduction of new Welfare Reform Acts the last government has introduced a regime of conditions and sanctions to tackle the 'terminally lazy' who've made a life-style choice of 'sucking at the welfare teat'. I would not deny that this is laudable, if it were not for the fact that such welfare reforms carry a far more insidious hidden agenda to cut welfare spending regardless of who gets hurt by having their benefits reduced and taken away from them. The ill and disabled are seen as "low hanging fruit" being least able to fight the injustice.

No-one can follow the previous and current governments' irrational reliance on what is, even by the government's admission, a flawed medical assessment system, however the official line is that GP's etc. are frightened of upsetting their patients and give out sick-notes etc. too easily because they fear confrontation, I.e. they are not to be trusted. This of course is just government propaganda, as is saying or implying that up to 83% of claimants are playing the system - it's all designed to assist them to vilify the ill and disabled and make it easier to reduce and remove their benefits without even a murmur of disapproval from most of the electorate. The day before yesterday the government was spinning on how Doctors integrity can be trusted to run multi-million £'s of funds, it isn't just me who finds it strange that, government also thinks Doctors can't be trusted to assess a patient they may have known for many years' (un)fitness for work even though (apparently) a complete stranger can after 16 minutes of ticking boxes on a computer and seldom looking up from the monitor to look at the claimant, can the government have it both ways?

 

The ideology which gave rise to these iniquitous welfare reforms dates back to the mid nineties and has been an on-going project of the neo-liberal right to pour more tax payer money into the private sector whilst simultaneously dismantling the Welfare State.

See:

"New Labour, the market state, and the end of welfare" (7)

(Jonathan Rutherford looks at the connections between government and the insurance business in their joint project to reduce eligibility for sickness benefits.)

 

Towards the end of his letter, Mr. B tried to exonerate the Mail by saying,

"I should also point out that the report also included the much lower figure of 400,000 claimed by the Tories to be incorrectly claiming the handout", (I have no major problems with this estimate, in fact it's quite close to my own)

however this was immediately followed by the Mail's own contradictory claim that:

"However, experts say that this figure is a serious underestimate. Official figures suggest that only one in six adults claiming incapacity benefit may be entitled to do so",

incidentally, who and where are these experts whom the Mail purports to know of?. What official figures suggesting 83.33% of IB claims are made by the workshy? You can't use the ESA statistics for this (as I pointed out earlier on). I hope the Mail didn't mean the well known property developer and handouts expert Mr. Grayling! I'll let you think about that one, ha ha.

 

In conclusion Ms. Dewar - re. what you said in your email,

"In particular – given that the Commission’s primary aim is the resolution of all substantive complaints wherever possible – do please let me know any suggestions you have which would help to resolve this matter to your satisfaction."

I would like a personally written letter of apology from Mail Editor - Mr. Paul Dacre, saying that the Daily Mail suggests that only 1 out of six IB claimants may fail to qualify for ESA. I would appreciate the right of reply e.g. have an un-cut article written by myself along the lines of this letter published as prominantly as the original report was in the Daily Mail newspaper (all editions for 24 hours) and on-line.

 

Thank-you Ms. Dewar for being unquestionably independent and fair in this matter, assuring you of my highest esteem and kind regards,

 

Paul Nurse.

 

(1) http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/esa_wca/esa_wca_13102009.pdf

(2) http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/esa_wca/esa_wca_27042010.pdf

(3) Page 11 ofhttp://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/esa_wca/esa_wca_27042010.pdf

(4) Employment and Support Allowance: a new harsher test Brighton Benefits Campaign

(5) http://www.cas.org.uk/FileAccess.aspx?id=7323

(6) http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/not_working_march_2010_final.pdf

(7) Soundings: a journal of politics and culture

(8) Osborne's haste will undermine incapacity benefit reform | Paul Gregg | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

(9) http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/21488/response/54269/attach/2/WDTK%20Mackwell%20reply.doc (DWP Adelphi Freedom-of-Information-Request Department for Work and Pensions 6 November 2009)

(10) Review to look at fairness of incapacity benefit tests | Politics | The Guardian

(11) Chris Grayling announces the end of incapacity benefit in four years | Mail Online

Edited July 16, 2010 by loan_ranger
made all reference links into hyper-links

[ee-bee]

i never realised that on thehttp://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/how-can-we-rethink-public-services-to-deliver-more-for-less/create-spending-challenge-website if you type in terminating atos contract theres quite alot of responses

[honeybee13]

LR, I think it's a masterpiece. I'm very pleased that you're pursuing it. Good to see that they dotake complaints seriously. I look forward to reading the next instalment.

 

HB x

[keldas]

On the w and b website someone has posted that the treasureys web site falls foul of legislation as it does not allow users to delete or edit their posts.