If the revolution is not going to be televised, then I think it should at least be clearly written. The first paragraph of the piece is slightly odd. As the author admits at the end - "This article is nothing to do with that..." so it is a bit of a false start. There are a couple typos - "you would have to worry about their ethics of their business plan", "a compulsory part of all MBAs courses" ... but, as it's nothing to do with the rest of the article, we'll let them pass.
In the next paragraph, the first sentence is a link to an article from Tech Week Europe, and the sentence is taken directly from the article. The next sentence could be clearer - I'm not sure what "impacting on them massive misery as widely reported" means - "making their lives a misery, as widely reported" perhaps - and it would be good to have some evidence of the "widely reported". There seems to be a tendency to use jargon - "unique strategic positioning", "the only corporate" - and as usual this gets in the way of clarity
The rest of the paragraph
It has interestingly been reported that the controversial disability benefits contract between Paralympics sponsor Atos and the Government is too weak to ensure value for money for taxpayers, the spending watchdog has found. The National Audit Office criticised Iain Duncan Smith’s Department of Work and Pensions for setting performance targets too low, failing to adequately fine ATOS for poor performance and not properly checking the accuracy of performance data that ATOS submitted.is strikingly similar to the first two paragraphs of the linked Independent article
The controversial disability benefits contract between Paralympics sponsor Atos and the Government is too weak to ensure value for money for taxpayers, the spending watchdog has found.Although, again, it's not put in quotes.
The National Audit Office criticised Iain Duncan Smith’s Department of Work and Pensions (DwP) for setting performance targets too low, failing to adequately fine Atos for poor performance and not properly checking the accuracy of performance data that Atos submitted.
Much of the next paragraph
In March 2012, the Home Office estimated that 65,000 disability hate crimes occur each year. And disability charities say it could be as high as 100,000. They have little doubt that the deteriorating situation is being driven by “benefit scrounger” abuse. The Department for Work and Pensions has been thus far accused of irresponsible rhetoric, in particular for its suggestion that three in four people claiming incapacity benefit are faking disabilities. It now estimates that only 0.3% of the incapacity benefit budget is overspent due to fraud. A DWP spokesman says it is “absolutely committed to supporting disabled people”, but he acknowledges that “we need to work together and do more to change negative attitudes”. Katharine Quarmby, author of Scapegoat: Why We Are Failing Disabled People, warns: “Unless the government decouples reducing benefits from hinting strongly that most disabled people are scroungers, then we’re going to see more attacks.”is similar to the linked Guardian article
In March, the Home Office estimated that 65,000 disability hate crimes occur each year. And disability charities say it could be as high as 100,000. They have little doubt that the deteriorating situation is being driven by "benefit scrounger" abuse.I think this extensive use of material from other articles results in a confusing style. This is not surprising, since the author is effectively trying to combine the styles of a number of different authors.
The Department for Work and Pensions has been accused of irresponsible rhetoric, in particular for its suggestion that three in four people claiming incapacity benefit are faking disabilities. It now estimates that only 0.3% of the incapacity benefit budget is overspent due to fraud. A DWP spokesman says it is "absolutely committed to supporting disabled people", but he acknowledges that "we need to work together and do more to change negative attitudes".
Yet Katharine Quarmby, author of Scapegoat: Why We Are Failing Disabled People, warns: "Unless the government decouples reducing benefits from hinting strongly that most disabled people are scroungers, then we're going to see more attacks."
This confused style is what I first noticed when I started to read the article - only later did I unpick the reasons. There is probably an interesting article in here trying to make its way out. It is a shame, because there is a need for politicians and think tanks to put forward their ideas and arguments clearly.
