{"id":25932,"date":"2011-08-23T18:34:28","date_gmt":"2011-08-23T17:34:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/?p=25932"},"modified":"2016-10-06T11:12:55","modified_gmt":"2016-10-06T10:12:55","slug":"benefits-test-company-threatens-critics-with-libel-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/?p=25932","title":{"rendered":"Benefits test company threatens critics with libel action"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Users of an online carers forum are devastated\u00a0after their site was closed following threats of legal action. Emily Butselaar reports on a worrying instance of internet censorship\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

A private firm in receipt of \u00a3100m of public money to test whether disability benefit claimants are fit for work has used legal threats to silence online criticism by disability rights campaigners.<\/p>\n

After warnings of legal action, web host\u00a0myfreeforum.org<\/a> has\u00a0pulled the plug on the website CarerWatch, a closed forum. The site’s users have still not been informed of the nature of the complaint.<\/p>\n

Atos Healthcare, a division of IT services firm Atos, is sub-contracted by the Department for Work and Pensions<\/a> (DWP) to assess whether sick and disabled people are entitled to disability benefit (now called employment support allowance). The assessments are a key part of the government’s welfare-to-work policy.<\/p>\n

The company has had a difficult summer. The chair of the\u00a0Work and Pensions select committee<\/a>, Dame Anne Begg MP, \u00a0criticised the company in July: “There have been failings in the service Atos Healthcare has provided, which has often fallen short of what claimants can rightly expect.” Earlier this month, an Observer investigation<\/a>\u00a0revealed that 12 doctors employed by the French-owned company are being investigated by the General Medical Council.<\/p>\n

Mike Harris of the Libel Reform campaign<\/a> said:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis case demonstrates the inconsistencies in our libel laws. Because Atos Healthcare are out-sourced work by the public sector they are allowed to sue for defamation, whereas a public body performing the same services can\u2019t. It’s unacceptable.\u00a0The work that Atos are undertaking is paid for by the taxpayer and as such taxpayers, in this case a group of carers, should be able to express a strong opinion on this.\u201d<\/p>\n

He added:<\/p>\n

\u201cAtos did not approach the author of the supposedly defamatory piece, who ultimately bears responsibility for what they wrote. Going direct to the internet hosts to pull the plug on this forum, which provides help and support for many vulnerable people, is a form of extra-judicial silencing. We need the select committee looking at the draft defamation bill to make concrete proposals to stop legal threats against internet hosts bringing down entire websites.\u201d<\/p>\n

Frances Kelly the founder of Carer Watch claims the site has never had a policy on Atos, instead their campaign is directed at government policies that affect people with disabilities. The site had no contact with Atos, who bypassed them to take their complaints directly to the web host.<\/p>\n

Kelly has now written to<\/a> Atos Healthcare asking for an explanation. She said: “Many members who are very fragile and the sudden disappearance of a support group has caused a lot of distress and fear. Some are ringing us in tears.”<\/p>\n

In a statement the company said: \u201cWhile we fully support the right of people to express their opinions, it is our duty to protect the reputation of our employees<\/a> and company against false and malicious allegations. In such circumstances, we will look to take any necessary steps to ensure that these unsupported claims are addressed swiftly and appropriately.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Users of an online carers forum are devastated after their site is closed following threats of legal action. Emily Butselaar<\/strong> reports on a worrying instance of internet censorship <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":30,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[3732,3733,165,1500,2399],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25932"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/30"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=25932"}],"version-history":[{"count":27,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25932\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":79171,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25932\/revisions\/79171"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=25932"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=25932"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=25932"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}