Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
Some strings might not be so invisible after all
This story has been in a few newspapers this morning. A more detailed one can be found in The Times, which I read in a café this morning. However, I can’t access it online as I am not a subscriber. One specific clause, which is drawn quite widely and which The Times quotes in full, is the one which prevents some organisations from doing or saying anything which might impugn ‘the reputation’ of the Secretary of State. However, it must be stressed that CitA is not subject to it.
Here’s the CitA bit: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/13474/P30/#63134
I think the issues thus far have been boiled down to:
1) There is no gagging clause but, given obvious opportunities to comment, CitA are electing to not comment - https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/tory-conference-charitys-silence-on-universal-credit-deaths-hours-after-minister-announces-51m-funding - which suggests to most people that increasing your income by 50% does indeed have an impact.
2) Most people have been unable to identify credible evidence to back up the CitA assertion that they’re a powerful voice to whom government listen and who have led government to make specific changes to UC.
3) The perception of impartiality has gone, regardless of the actuality and it’s only the perception which matters.
4) There is a schism between the central CitA and local bureaux which both sides are doing well to cover up but which is there for all to see.
5) CitA is populated by a significant number of people who have previously worked within government and that also cannot fail but to have been an influence not only in the action but also in the genuine disbelief about the reaction. They genuinely don’t see a problem.