Campaign against S&BP's exploitation of disabled people working for its Old Moat Garden Centre in Epsom, Surrey which has now dragged on for almost a year.
The scrolling images above are of board members , directors and senior managers of SABP and MCCH Society Ltd. These images are already available online on SABP's and MCCH's own websites. Click on images for details of who these people are.
Des curley
posted by simply human @ 12:37 am
Listen to this article
2 comments
We are campaigning to see that SABP's disabled workers at least get the national minimum wage or if they are on benefits paid at the appropriate permitted work rules rates.
We are also appalled that Surrey & Borders has treated its disabled workers in this way while claiming that its services are User Friendly.
This uncaring 'professional' attitude towards and exploitation of disabled workers isnt just happening in Surrey, it appears to be part of wider DWP and NIMHE policy . Please use the Action Links below to support the campaign and let other people know what is going on.
Please help populate this section
Dot This
| toolbar powered by Conduit |
2 Comments:
To be honest I'm quite impressed by the Project Plan on Therapeutic work which seems to be saying that some of the disabled workers should definitely be paid the minimum wage or above. They also cite the valuing people site which I have been quoting from for ages which shows voluntary work in these projects up to be exploitative. On the downside they say the projects can be modelled on the Tuck by Truck example run by MCCH Ltd and this does use a lot of volunteer labour even though some are paid the minimum wage. Whatever they arrange now I wonder what will happen when the projects transfer to the Richmond Fellowship as I don't believe they have any intention of paying anyone. I also wonder what the MCCH report which is due in December will recommend for The Old Moat?
The planned Therapeutic Payments Project is very clearly a service user driven initative that came about because , and only because, in Fiona Edwards own words , the Trust and its experts 'didnt treat service users very well.'
Surrey and Borders will have to demonstrate that any assessments and experts involved in the project are independent as the Trust simply wont get away with treating its service users badly again.
Jill Goble should also receive some official credit for helping compile the Project Plan as she spent a great deal of time and effort on this blog defining and explaining the legal situation Jo Young now sets out as binding on behalf of the Trust.
In fact, Jill worked fucking hard without getting a single penny and her input was clearly more principled , factual and honest than that of Helen Lockett and her 'mentor' Dr Bob Jones.
Their expertise was definitely not good value for money , they hung around the Trust for a year on high salaries yet here we are back to square one only this time with a remit based on the law.
SABP would be showing ordinary taxpayers and its service users utter contempt if it drafted in SCMH's charlatan ' academics or their associates to fill the independent expert post on this project.
If Fiona Edwards had any sense and decency about her she'd offer the job to Jill and, in line with the projects stated intentions negotiate how to pay her based on her circumstances. I'm not sure Jill would accept it but just offering Jill the job would improve Fiona's credibility rating.
It also might teach some SABP staff a constructive lesson to have to respect the opinion of a service user who is more intelligent than they are.
Post a Comment
<< Home