The BBC has bigger impartiality problems than its coverage of Trump

Let’s accept that someone at the BBC made a clumsy error in editing some clips of Donald Trump addressing the crowd on January 6 2021. And let’s acknowledge that the BBC has known for some time that there have been problems with aspects of its Arabic service. Worst-kept secret in the world: all media organisations occasionally screw up.

That’s true of all Fleet Street newspapers, as well as leading broadcasters. Journalism, as the wise old Washington sage David Broder once wrote, is “a partial, hasty, incomplete, inevitably somewhat flawed and inaccurate rendering of some of the things we have heard about in the past 24 hours – distorted, despite our best efforts to eliminate gross bias – by the very process of compression that makes it possible for you to lift it from the doorstep and read it in about an hour.”

The veteran Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist was writing about newspapers, but the same is true of every digital outlet and television company. The important thing, as Broder went on to add, is that we label the product accurately – and correct and update any errors.

The Daily Telegraph – which has revealed the BBC’s latest problems – is no more immune to making mistakes than any other news outlet. The difference is that, when their own editorial, ownership and ethical failings come to light, it doesn’t register nine on the Richter scale of public and political outrage. That’s reserved for the BBC.

Fair enough, you might say. We all contribute to the BBC’s journalism through the licence fee, and it enjoys a somewhat protected status within the UK’s media environment. All true. But the venom spat at the BBC on a near-daily basis by its ideological and commercial enemies is out of all proportion to its occasional lapses.

The latest squall has arisen over a “dossier” apparently compiled by one Michael Prescott, a former journalist working for Rupert Murdoch, who had something of a ringside seat at the BBC for three years. He has questioned the editing of a Panorama programme on Donald Trump – which elides separate quotes to make it look like Trump said he would march on the Capitol and “fight like hell” with his supporters.

Mr Prescott also has concerns about what he regards as an anti-Israeli bias within the corporation, as well as its coverage of certain trans issues.

Well, all those claims will doubtless be picked over in the coming weeks, with MPs demanding BBC bosses explain themselves. Two of Prescott’s complaints seem particularly questionable. The first is that the Panorama editing was “completely misleading.” Prescott argues that the fact that Trump did not explicitly exhort supporters to fight at the Capitol was one of the reasons he wasn’t prosecuted.

But the Congressional committee which examined the day’s events in detail recommended criminal charges on the basis that the former president did indeed incite the attack on Congress – a verdict backed by the only federal district judge to consider the case. The Senate voted 57-43 to impeach him, with seven republicans backing the motion. So, while the way the film was edited was wrong, it’s not clear that it was “misleading” in the way Mr Prescott argues.

Secondly, Prescott seems to have believed that an “equally aggressive” look at Kamala Harris should have been commissioned. He found it “shocking and alarming” the aberrant behaviour of Trump should be singled out for especial scrutiny. But that suggests a bizarre notion of editorial equivalence. The deputy head of news, Jonathan Munro, was surely right to have dismissed Prescott’s idea of “due impartiality.”

Similarly, with criticisms of the BBC and Israel, there have been plausible and detailed critiques which suggest that the BBC is, contrary to Prescott’s own belief, actually biased in favour of Israel. But such analyses tend to sink without trace. Is this, in itself, a form of bias?

But let’s take a step back and look at the decidedly odd governance arrangements at the BBC, which is still, despite all of the above, one of the greatest news organisations in the world and quite easily the most trusted news providers in the UK.

Mr Prescott is reported to have sent his dossier to BBC Board members. They are a motley bunch, with five of them (including the chair, Samir Shah) appointed by the government of the day. The 13-strong board include several business leaders, lawyers and people with experience in investment banking and private equity. I counted three (not including the director general, Tim Davie) with any substantial record in journalism.

But the key committee looking after editorial standards is an even odder body since it comprises three insiders (Shah, Davie and head of news Deborah Turness) as well as two outsiders, Sir Robbie Gibb and a former BBC COO, Caroline Thomson.

It’s odd, because it’s an uncomfortable mix of the people supposedly enforcing standards and those who are accused of allowing standards to slip. This is the body which, according to Prescott, didn’t take his concerns seriously enough. Prescott was, along with one Caroline Daniel, an editorial advisor to the committee.

Here’s where it all becomes a little murky. Sir Robbie Gibb will be familiar to some as a rather abrasive “proper Thatcherite conservative” (his own description) who led the mystery consortium to buy the Jewish Chronicle on behalf of a secret backer whose identity has never been revealed. His stewardship of that paper saw it mired in a number of its own ethical and editorial failings. Pots and kettles.

Whatever you might say of Gibb, he does not pretend to be impartial on issues related to British politics or Israel. But he was appointed by Boris Johnson and confirmed by Rishi Sunak, so the BBC is stuck with him as a supposedly objective arbiter on such matters.

Prescott is reported by the Financial Times to be a friend of Sir Robbie. There was some controversy over Johnson’s choice of him to help select the chair of OfCom, which regulates the BBC. That process – widely regarded as farcical – resulted in Lord [Michael] Grade, 82, eventually getting the job after Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre was deemed unappointable. It was claimed, and never denied, that Gibb had intervened to try and ensure that a long-standing Conservative back office functionary landed the role instead.

But there is a more serious oddity here. Eight years ago, Gibb decided he was done with journalism and embarked on a life of public relations – first in Downing Street for Theresa May, and then with a “Global strategic Communications firm”, Kekst CNC.

Prescott’s career took a similar path. Twenty-four years ago, he bailed out of journalism – again preferring to join the ranks of PR professionals. For eight and a half years, he worked for Weber Shandwick. There followed nearly 16 years spinning on behalf of BT. For the last nine years he has worked for Hanover Communications, a PR company with links to the Conservative party.

And Ms Daniel? By remarkable coincidence she, too, decided that journalism was no longer for her. Nine years ago, she quit her job at the FT and joined Brunswick, where she provides “strategic communications advice.” That leaves Caroline Thomson, who had a solid track record in journalism up to 2000 before looking after the corporation’s operations and, subsequently, a portfolio life with various public sector bodies.

If I were a BBC journalist, under such intensive scrutiny and fire, I’m not sure I would be terribly comforted by these governance arrangements, beginning with a Director General with no substantive journalistic record and a Board with negligible experience of what it is to be a journalist in the 21st century.

On top of that, I’d wonder why such close editorial scrutiny should have been entrusted to three key people who themselves rejected journalism in order to enjoy lucrative careers in corporate and political communications. Who, bluntly, would you trust more to be impartial on the Middle East – Robbie Gibb, Michael Prescott or Lyse Doucet? Why should the PR professionals who turned their own backs on journalism sit in judgment on the latter?

By all means, let’s have a debate about Prescott’s “dossier”, preferably unfiltered by the Daily Telegraph. But let’s keep a sense of proportion about it all. And let’s find a governance structure for the BBC that equips it to handle complex editorial decisions robustly and expertly. The BBC is in a mess – but not necessarily the mess you think.

Russian soldier jailed for life after killing PoW in landmark Ukraine war ruling

Ukraine has sentenced a Russian soldier to life in prison for killing a Ukrainian prisoner of war in a landmark first ruling for the country.

Dmitry Kurashov, 27, was found guilty of fatally shooting Vitalii Hodniuk, a 41-year-old veteran Ukrainian soldier who surrendered when his dugout was captured by Russian forces in January 2024.

Kurashov told Reuters that he did not plan to appeal the decision after the sentencing was handed down at the court in the city of Zaporizhzhia.

“This is one of the most serious crimes; it’s an important matter for Ukraine, because such cases should not remain without consideration and an appropriate sentence,” said Mykyta Manevskyi, the lead prosecutor in the case, after the verdict was issued.

Kurashov was taken prisoner by Ukrainian forces, along with other Russian soldiers, shortly after Hodniuk’s killing. He pleaded guilty to the charge in court, but later told reporters that he was innocent and hoped to be released in a prisoner exchange.

He lost his left eye while fighting in Ukraine, having joined the military’s Storm V assault units in exchange for early release from prison for theft, according to authorities.

The Russian soldier declined to issue any final words to the court at the end of his trial and declined to answer questions from reporters, only smiling slightly when asked if he hoped he would be released in a prisoner swap. His lawyer did not attend the sentencing but previously told the court that a 10-year custodial sentence would suffice.

“It’s not too much for such a crime,” Mr Manevskyi, who had pushed for a life sentence, said after the ruling.

The case carries symbolic importance for the country, with suspects accused of executing Ukrainian soldiers usually out of its jurisdiction.

Criminal investigations are underway into the alleged murder of 322 Ukrainian servicemen who had unconditionally laid down their arms and/or surrendered since Russia invaded the country in February 2022, according to the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office.

The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission said in February that there had been an “alarming rise” in reported executions of Ukrainian soldiers captured by Russia.

It is illegal under international humanitarian law to execute prisoners of war and the wounded, and such actions are regarded as war crimes.

A 2024 UN report found that 95 per cent of released Ukrainian POWs had endured “systematic” torture, with prisoners describing beatings, electric shocks, suffocation, sexual violence, prolonged stress positions, mock executions, and sleep deprivation.

Russia has denied that its troops have committed war crimes.

Labour deputy leader’s views on party policy are ‘irritating’, says Labour peer

Labour deputy leader Lucy Powell’s views on party policy “really irritate me”, former shadow culture secretary Thangam Debbonaire has said.

The Labour peer accused Ms Powell of “giving a running commentary and undermining” the government after she said plans to break the manifesto pledge on tax rises would damage “trust in politics”.

Ms Powell had said the government “should be following through” on its pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT, amid mounting speculation Rachel Reeves is preparing to do so at the Budget.

Speaking to Times Radio on Friday, Baroness Debbonaire said: “It really irritates me… she clearly said, ‘I am here to support the government’.

“She’s not supposed to be there for giving a running commentary and undermining, she’s a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party…

“I would really caution Lucy to think about the key role in the Labour Party as the deputy leader is to get out and campaign and we need a lot of that.”

Ms Powell, who was sacked from Sir Keir’s Cabinet in September, went on to win the race to succeed Angela Rayner as deputy party leader last month after a campaign based on a call for the party to change course.

Speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live on Thursday, she said: “We should be following through on our manifesto, of course.

“Trust in politics is a key part of that because if we’re to take the country with us then they’ve got to trust us and that’s really important too.”

Ms Powell said the highly-anticipated Budget should be about “putting more money back into the pockets of ordinary working people”.

She added: “That’s what that manifesto commitment is all about. And that’s what this Budget will be about, I’m sure.

“It’s really important we stand by the promises that we were elected on and that we do what we said we would do.”

It comes after the chancellor put the country on notice that sweeping tax rises are coming in her Budget in a major speech last week, warning “we will all have to contribute” to building a new future for Britain.

Promising to put the national interest above “political expediency”, Ms Reeves signalled she is ready to break Labour’s manifesto commitment not to raise income tax, personal national insurance or VAT.

Meanwhile, The Times reported that the chancellor has told the Office for Budget Responsibility that she is preparing to raise income tax later this month.

A spokesperson for Ms Powell later said she would continue to support the chancellor.

“As Lucy made clear in the interview the chancellor and prime minister make decisions on the Budget in the round.

“As the chancellor said this week, the context for this Budget is particularly difficult and Lucy will continue to support them on these issues.”

The big problem with Meghan’s acting comeback – and it’s not Harry or the royals

Eight years after announcing her retirement from Hollywood to become a working royal, Meghan Markle is reportedly reviving her acting career to make a return to screens – as herself.

The Duchess of Sussex – who stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and returned to the safety of California citing exhaustion and desire for peace – is believed to be filming scenes for a forthcoming film, Close Personal Friends, alongside Lily Collins, Brie Larson and Jack Quaid, according to The Sun.

A studio source claimed the duchess was on set of the Amazon MGM Studios production shooting scenes in Pasadena this week. They added the film, which follows two couples – one famous and one not – who become friends, was a “massive moment” for Markle and “signifies a return to doing what she truly loves”.

According to the source, Markle has been “swamped with offers” to get back in front of the camera but this one – perhaps the easiest role of all time – “felt right”. “It is Meghan’s way of gently putting her toe back in the water and seeing how she enjoys being back on set,” they explained, adding everyone was “super excited” and had been “sworn to secrecy”.

Markle’s decision to play herself in her career-reviving role is decidedly strange. She has spent the last year being beguiled by bees and making cakes with B-list celebrities on her lifestyle series With Love, Meghan, which was widely lampooned. Could playing herself fix a floundering reputation? Somehow it seems unlikely.

The 44-year-old former Suits star, who played paralegal Rachel Zane for seven seasons of the show, was a solid actor before she packed it all in to shake hands and wave from balconies when she agreed to marry Prince Harry in 2017.

“I never had to worry about a scene she was going to be in. I knew that she’d bring a performance that was just right,” The West Wing star Tim Matheson told Fox of his time directing Markle during season one of Suits last year, adding the duchess’s choice to quit acting “was a bold move on her part”.

For Markle to play herself now feels more than a little overly safe and misguided. There’s always something decidedly cringe about an A-lister who cameos as their own famous face in a film: Donald Trump in Home Alone, Al Pacino in Jack and Jill, Katy Perry in Zoolander 2, to give a few examples. Markle returned to screens amid her Hollywood hiatus with the tell-all Harry & Meghan documentary that aired in 2022, followed by two seasons of With Love, Meghan in March and August 2025, which saw her cook and craft alongside stars including Mindy Kahling and Queer Eye’s Tan France to try and make good on her deal with the streaming platform – thought to be worth over $100m (£74m).

A special Christmas episode of With Love, Meghan, called Holiday Celebration is now slated to air this December for the festive season. In August this year, Sussex’s multi-million-dollar deal with Netflix became markedly less prestigious when it became a “first look” deal rather than an exclusive contract with the streaming service. Now, Netflix will get to see what content the couple come up with and say “yes” or “no” before anyone else – but they will not be under any obligation to stream it. A huge glaring sign that nothing Markle has released as herself has hit quite the same success reputationally as Suits – her last good performance.

Yet, perhaps the true reason Markle can only play herself is that she has such a domineering personal brand thanks to all this Netflix hullabaloo that it’s too difficult for her to believably play anybody else – without severe amounts of special effects makeup or some kind of elaborate costume.

Still, if we’re to believe what sources say to People, Markle, who has been put through the ringer quite enough in the past decade, is very “relaxed and happy” about her small part. Maybe, after all the criticism and the disparaging reviews, taking a creative risk felt just a little too scary. Sometimes, it’s better the devil you know – even if that is yourself.

What is tacit knowledge – could your work skills spark a new career?

Whether it’s solving a logistical problem, navigating a tricky client meeting or being able to design, craft or build, we all have certain skills that feel straightforward to us yet can seem out of reach to others. A big part of this is tacit knowledge, the personal ‘know-how’ that individuals possess, built up over time. In a work context, this tacit knowledge can open interesting doors to potential new career paths, in which this real-world experience can be shared with the next generation of workers.

Understanding the concept of tacit knowledge is perhaps easiest when compared to its counterpart: explicit knowledge. “Explicit knowledge is something you can fully articulate linguistically and can be understood without context while tacit knowledge is something that can’t be described in the same way and needs its context to be appreciated,” Dr Neil Gascoigne, Reader in Philosophy at Royal Holloway University of London and co-author of Tacit Knowledge, explains.

Gascoigne gives the example of the famous physics equation of E=mc^2. This formula is considered a piece of explicit knowledge, as words can be used to explain the idea. However, the average person wouldn’t know how to use this formula. This is where tacit knowledge comes in. You would need to have studied physics, put your knowledge into practice and learned first-hand how to use formulas effectively in order to make the most of the explicit knowledge given.

In the workplace, a company handbook might explicitly set out the business’ practice for a certain task. However, you would need some tacit knowledge gained through work experience or time in the company to complete this task most successfully and efficiently.

As tacit knowledge is harder to explain with words, it often has a mysterious quality to it. However, as Gascoigne points out, this is only to the untrained eye. “Tacit knowledge often seems obscure to people unless they possess similar skills themselves. Without them, it doesn’t become apparent what expertise is exactly on display,” he elaborates.

“For instance, say I am watching a Grand Slam tennis match. I know there’s an astonishing kind of athleticism, but if I don’t play tennis or am not a committed tennis fan, I might not be able to tell the difference between a really great shot and a more average shot,” Gascoigne says.

This same idea applies in the workplace. Tacit knowledge is gained through experience and consequently, while we all have tacit knowledge, the areas we have it in differ. What’s more, it can even seem quite mysterious to ourselves. When we have worked in a certain industry for a period of time, we aren’t always aware of the tacit knowledge we have gained. While explicit knowledge relates to aspects of our job that we might have had to sit down and learn, our tacit knowledge is obtained in a practical way over time, by doing tasks again and again and subtly learning and improving as we go along.

After a while, we know exactly how to tackle projects or solve problems, almost without thinking. For instance, in the construction industry, this tacit knowledge would help you judge site safety or develop practical skills like site excavation, land levelling or brick laying. If you work in social care, it is only with time and experience that you can pick up on subtle emotional cues or manage crisis situations effectively. While in engineering, years spent tackling complex technical issues allow you to troubleshoot effectively, and draw on a myriad of possible solutions from projects past.

Whatever sector you work in, the knowledge needed to succeed is always a mixture of explicit and tacit, and the latter – this know-how built from personal experience, intuition, and practice – is incredibly valuable when it comes to judging real-world situations, solving complex problems and having an edge over competitors.

And while by definition, not explicit, that doesn’t mean that tacit knowledge can’t be shared. Indeed with time, attention and training, you can drill down on years-honed skills and information, and share it with others through teaching.

In fact, it is at the core of sharing your craft – and that’s far more than a simple list of instructions. “To learn how to do something, you really need to follow the example of somebody who already knows how to do it,” says Gascoigne. “These people have learnt the rules, internalised them and use tacit knowledge to know when they apply and when they don’t.”

Tacit knowledge is particularly valuable when it comes to Further Education teaching (defined as any education for people aged 16 and over who aren’t studying for a degree). This is because the focus is on preparing students for employment, and teachers need to draw on tacit knowledge to share how things really work in their industry. This ensures that students complete their qualifications not only with theoretical competence but also practical and employable skills.

This is why this type of practical learning that further education teachers specialise in can be so valuable. Workshop-style teaching and skills-led mentoring allows for those with experience to share the vital tacit knowledge they have built up over time in real-world scenarios. Meanwhile, those learning from them can see these nuggets of knowledge in action and have a chance to put them in practice as they learn.

If you’re passionate about your industry and interested in sharing your own tacit knowledge,  becoming a Further Education teacher can be a really rewarding and valuable career move. Further Education covers a huge range of industry sectors including construction, law, engineering, digital, hospitality, tourism, beauty and more. This includes BTECs (Business and Technology Education Council qualifications), T Levels, NVQs (National Vocational Qualifications) or City & Guilds Qualifications.

Teaching in a mixture of colleges (often General Further Education Colleges or Sixth Form Colleges) and Adult and Community Learning Centres as well as workplace and apprenticeship settings, Further Education teachers share their years of real world industry  skills with people of all ages and backgrounds from those straight out of school aged sixteen to those making career switches later in life.

You don’t always need an academic degree or prior teaching qualifications to start teaching in Further Education. You can undertake teacher training on the job, often funded by your employer, so you can start earning straight away. Furthermore, it doesn’t have to be an all or nothing option. Further Education offers flexible opportunities – so you could teach part time alongside your other commitments. This means you could have a best of both worlds set-up, where you are still working in your chosen industry and teaching alongside it at a time that suits your schedule.

Whether it’s shifting your career fully or adding teaching into the mix, becoming a Further Education teacher can be a life-changing decision. One that taps into your well of tacit knowledge and creates a sense of fulfillment from helping shape the next generation of workers in your field.

Why not consider sharing your tacit knowledge where it matters most – helping inspire the next generation of workers in the field you love? Visit Further Education to find out more

Ex-Met officer claims woman made up allegations because of ‘MeToo movement’

Former Metropolitan Police officer David Carrick claimed a woman made up allegations against him because of the “MeToo movement”, a court has heard.

The convicted sex offender, 50, is on trial, accused of molesting a girl in the late 1980s and raping a woman during the course of a toxic relationship more than 20 years later.

Jurors at the Old Bailey have heard that the fresh allegations came after Carrick pleaded guilty in 2022 and 2023 to 71 instances of sexual violence against 12 different women over a period spanning 17 years.

The offences included 48 rapes as well as attempted rapes, indecent assault, assaults by penetration, and sexual assaults.

He had also admitted three offences of controlling and coercive behaviour against women, the Old Bailey was told.

In November 2023, police visited Carrick at Full Sutton prison in Yorkshire to interview him about the new allegations against him, according to agreed facts read to the court.

Carrick denied the woman’s claims against him and said their sex was consensual, jurors heard.

He also denied assaulting her and claimed Hertfordshire Police had failed to investigate when she assaulted him and caused criminal damage to his home, marking the end of their relationship.

On that occasion, police had created a report for domestic assault with him as a suspect, jurors were told.

Asked what had led Hertfordshire Police to believe him to be a suspect, Carrick said: “It’s a corrupt police force making their own stories up. Anti-Met rhetoric.”

Asked if he had controlled the woman, he said: “Oh f***ing hell, it’s the same story over and over again, isn’t it?

“The same story you sold to the media, and they just continually copied the same story, that is what it’s about.”

When quizzed about whether the woman had made up her allegation of controlling behaviour, he said: “Yes, because of the Me Too movement.”

He insisted the woman was always in charge during their sexual relationship, and if she had said “no”, he would have stopped straightaway.

Carrick was also asked about allegations that he had sexually abused a 12-year-old girl.

He told police it was all investigated by Wiltshire Constabulary at the time and there was a record of what happened.

Prosecutor Tom Little KC told jurors that checks were made with Wiltshire Police and there are no records to indicate there was any form of police investigation into any allegations by the girl in 1989 or 1990.

As part of the series of facts agreed by both defence and prosecution lawyers, jurors were told that Carrick had worked for the Metropolitan Police from 2001.

Carrick has pleaded not guilty to two charges of rape, one of sexual assault and coercive and controlling behaviour towards the woman between 2014 and 2019.

The defendant, formerly of Stevenage in Hertfordshire, has denied five counts of sexual assault relating to the girl in the late 1980s.

Neither of the alleged victims in the case can be identified for legal reasons.

At the conclusion of the prosecution case, Ms Justice McGowan adjourned the Old Bailey trial until Monday 17 November.

‘I helped run the UK’s welfare system. Now it’s broken me’

“Nobody cares whether I’ve worked my whole life,” says Jo, 53, from Sheffield. “They hear the words ‘universal credit’ and think you’re a scrounger. As a workaholic, it’s hard for me to process not working. I feel like I’ve got no purpose, no worth.”

The mother-of-two held roles in the public sector all her life, including years as an adviser at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). However, when declining health forced her out of work, she found herself facing the other side of the benefits system.

“For me, it was an absolute nightmare, my worst nightmare,” Jo says, describing her experience visiting the Jobcentre. Her health issues mean she struggles to leave the house, but she was told she would not be able to claim universal credit without making an in-person visit.

“It all depends on the advisor you get,” she says, adding that she would always go “the extra mile” in her time at the DWP. “You could go to one adviser with an issue, and they just say, ‘I’m sorry there’s nothing I can do,’ you’ll go to another one and they will find a way or do everything they can.”

Jo has been supported in her journey on to benefits by Turn2us, a national welfare charity that helps people secure all the help they are entitled to. In a new report, the organisation has called on the government to take steps to tackle stigma around benefits and rebuild trust in the welfare system.

One of the key fixes to achieve this is investing in frontline staff to improve support, the charity says, ensuring every work coach can make claimants feel like they matter.

Simplifying and humanising access to personal independence payments (PIP) is another key step, it finds, urging the government to ensure that assessors are properly equipped to understand the realities of disability and illness.

The assessment for health and disability-related benefits has long been criticised by claimants and campaigners for being difficult and inconsistent.

Jo says it was one of the hardest parts of navigating the welfare system.

“I found it was just set up to catch you out,” she says. “They won’t admit that, but that’s exactly what they’re doing.”

“When I went for my assessment, they put it at the furthest room, and I didn’t realise because I didn’t have experience of PIP”.

“They were watching my every move, and even though it was obvious I was in pain, and I had to keep stopping, the fact that I managed to do it went against me”.

And Jo is not alone in her experience. Recent research from the University of Bristol found that 64 per cent of claimants believe the department is “trying to catch them out”, while 80 per cent of PIP recipients fear losing support.

In June, The Independent heard from several PIP claimants who struggled with the assessment process.

Fergus, 44, from Glasgow, worked at the DWP for 14 years before chronic back pain forced him to step back from employment.

“I helped run the system. Now it’s broken me,” he says. The single father describes how he was rejected for the health-related element for universal credit after a 10-minute phone call, and now faces the lengthy wait for reconsideration.

“They asked me if I could do things like pick up a pound coin, wash my hair, or make food,” he explains. “Yes, I can, but I’m in severe pain when I do. The assessment doesn’t recognise that reality.”

“It’s almost like they don’t believe you, despite the fact I gave them access to my medical records,” he says. “Despite that, they still say I’m fit to do some work, but then when you ask, ‘What jobs do you think I can do?’ they tell you, ‘I don’t know.’”

This process – called the work capability assessment – differs from the one for PIP, and has also been criticised since its introduction in 2008.

In a 2023 report, the work and pensions committee, then chaired by Sir Stephen Timms, said the negative experience of both by a “sizeable minority” continues to undermine trust in the DWP.

Following Labour’s damaging U-turn over proposals to tighten the eligibility for PIP in June, the benefit is being reviewed by Sir Stephen – now disability minister – focusing especially on the assessment process. The findings from this review will impact most disability benefit claimants, with the PIP assessment also set to eventually replace the work capability assessment.

Lucy Bannister, head of policy and influencing at Turn2us, said: “Our social security system should give people stability when life changes and confidence to rebuild their lives.

“The government’s plans to support more people to move into, and progress in, work are welcome – but it is doomed to fail unless more is done to address the suspicion, mistrust and stigma baked into the system.

“The government’s language and the practice of the DWP is breaking down trust, making it impossible to adequately assess the support someone needs, or help overcome barriers to work.”

A DWP spokesperson said: “We’re shifting our focus from welfare to work, skills and opportunities, backed by £1bn a year for employment support for sick or disabled people by the end of the decade.

“We are also committed to making PIP fit and fair for the future, which is why we’ve announced a ministerial review of its assessment process.

“The review will be co-produced with disabled people and the organisations that represent them, ensuring their views and voices are at the heart of our decision making.”