Six groups told the Guardian that a narrative of “benefits scroungers or fakers” was making disabled people increasingly become the target of resentment, which some organisations fear could spill over into hate crimes.

The charities – Scope, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire Disability, the National Autistic Society, Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) and Disability Alliance – said inflammatory media played a part, but laid the blame largely with ministers and civil servants for repeatedly highlighting supposed mass abuse of the system, it was reported.

The Government has pledged to cut the bill for disability living allowance (DLA), which is to be replaced by the personal independence payment (PIP), by 20% by 2015/16.

Last month, minister for disabled people Maria Miller said: “In the past DLA has been poorly managed so we now have a situation where there are hundreds of millions of pounds of overpayments and the vast majority of people get the benefit for life without systematic checks to see if their condition has changed.”

Last April, employment minister Chris Grayling said the “vast majority” of new claimants for sickness benefits were in fact able to go back to work, after official figures showed three-quarters of applicants for employment and support allowance (ESA) failed to qualify for assistance.

Tom Madders, head of campaigns at the National Autistic Society, told the newspaper: “The Department for Work and Pensions is certainly guilty of helping to drive this media narrative around benefits, portraying those who received benefits as workshy scroungers or abusing a system that’s really easy to cheat.”

Some disabled people avoid going out because of the hostile climate, or avoid using facilities such as designated parking bays if they “don’t look disabled”, it was claimed.

According to polling by Scope, in September two-thirds of people with disabilities said they had experienced recent hostility or taunts, up from 41% four months before.

Scope chief executive Richard Hawkes said: “Disabled people tell us that increasingly people don’t believe that they are disabled and suddenly feel empowered to question their entitlement to support.”

Guy Parckar, policy manager for Leonard Cheshire, spoke of an “incredibly strong focus on benefit fraud” within the DWP, which he said was “mentioned at all possible opportunities”.

“There is the impact of potential hate crime, and the issues around that,” he told the Guardian.

The charities’ comments come after a warning that highly vulnerable households could be harmed by the Government’s planned £26,000 annual benefit cap.

EntrepreneurEmma Harrison, who was appointed by David Cameron to get families back into work, said she was concerned parents of severely disabled children could lose out.

While she accepted the need for welfare reform, she told BBC Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics: “I think that in all big policies that there are going to be people who are going to be trapped, and I think we need to be really, really careful we don’t catch the wrong people.”

A Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) spokeswoman said: “We are absolutely committed to supporting disabled people and whilst we already have laws in place to ensure equality, we need to work together and do more to change negative attitudes.

“That is why we have recently launched a consultation on developing a new cross-government disability strategy, with one of the key areas looking at promoting positive attitudes and behaviours towards disabled people and tackling discrimination and harassment wherever they occur.

“Our welfare reforms are designed to restore integrity into the benefits system and to ensure that everyone who needs help and support receives it.”

[Reuters] Mark Zuckerberg may be retaining tight control over the company when it floats, but he isn’t the only one running the company. Critically he has surrounded himself with experienced executives.

These are some of the key personalities behind Zuckerberg and Facebook – the world’s largest social network.

1. Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive and co-founder

Zuckerberg, portrayed as a brilliant, ambitious and ruthless empire-builder in the 2010 movie “The Social Network,” founded Facebook with Chris Hughes, Dustin Moskovitz and Eduardo Saverin while at Harvard University in 2004.

The 27-year-old frontman, who has repeatedly said he was in no rush to go public because that might distract employees and dilute his control, decides the direction and product strategy of the company.

Forbes estimates Zuckberg’s net worth at $17.5 billion, making him the 14th richest man in the United States.

2. Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer and Zuckerberg’s top lieutenant

Sandberg, one of the most powerful women in Silicon Valley, oversees business operations including sales, marketing, business development, human resources, public policy and communications.

Another former Google employee, Sandberg built and managed Google’s online sales channels for advertising and publishing and operations for consumer products. Before working for Google, she was chief of staff at the Treasury Department under President Clinton.

Zuckerberg’s 533.8 million shares in Facebook are worth almost $16 billion, based on a per-share value of $29.76 that the company assigned to its restricted stock units on 31st December. As a result, Zuckerberg, following the example set by Apple founder Steve Jobs, agreed to decrease his compensation from $1.48 million last year to $1.00 effective Jan. 1, 2013.

By comparison, Sheryl Sandberg earned $30.8 million in total compensation last year.

3. Peter Thiel, investor and director

The billionaire Stanford alumnus and former Wall Street trader was Facebook’s first outside investor and director. Thiel co-founded online payments service PayPal and sold it to eBay Inc for $1.5 billion in 2002.

4. Christopher Cox, vice president of product

Cox organizes Facebook’s product strategy and oversees product management and design. He joined the company in 2005 as a software engineer and was involved in the first versions of Facebook features such as the News Feed and Inbox.

5. Dan Rose, vice president of partnerships

A former Amazon.com Inc manager who helped develop the “Kindle” digital book reader, Rose oversees Facebook’s partnerships, forging ties with Hollywood film studios, game makers, mobile phone companies and even carmakers. Rose also takes the lead on mergers and acquisitions.

6. David Fischer, vice president of advertising and global operations

Fischer is responsible for much of Facebook’s vast and highly profitable advertising network. He runs sales, advertiser marketing and customer operations. During seven years at Google Inc, Fischer helped build that company’s online ad network into the largest in the world.

Before that, he was deputy chief of staff at the Treasury Department during the Clinton Administration.

>> FMWF would like to know your views and hear about the issues affecting you and those you care for. You can comment below or email whocares@fmwf.com.

By Sarah Whitebloom

Another voice cried in the wilderness: something has to be done urgently over the mess that is care for the elderly in Britain today. Older people all over the country have been abandoned to their fate. It is a national disgrace. And lo it came to pass that nothing was done – or at least not yet.

Last week [24 February] the Commons Health Select Committee became the latest group to warn about the burgeoning crisis in care for the elderly. The Alzheimer’s Society, Age UK and a host of others must be hoarse by now with all the wilderness crying they have been doing. Even the Government, as Who Cares? noted last year, has been making all sorts of noise about the need to improve the way we treat the elderly.

Yet the King’s Fund estimates there are about 800,000 older people who need care but receive none. Many others get some help but are barely managing, despite being in chronic need.

And what has been the response of our local authorities? These august authorities, that are charged with delivering care to the elderly, are cutting care services and upping their charges. The Select Committee found that two thirds of councils were slashing their social care budgets while half had increased what the elderly have to pay. The fees that councils will pay for care homes have also gone down and it’s getting more difficult in some areas even to get hand rails and other living aids provided.

This will come as no surprise, of course, to anyone trying to get help for elderly relatives. The switchboard operator at our local authority told me last week that I would be lucky if the area adult help desk answered my call. She told me: ‘It’s easier to speak to God than one of them.’

Six phone calls later and I have managed only a brief conversation with someone from the Help Desk, who phoned to tell me he was going to get back to me. As yet, I have heard nothing, although my call concerned a pressing matter.

Of course, in this current climate, councils are having to make less money go further and they are having to make cuts in some of their services. Care budgets offer a big, fat opportunity for them to save money. And elderly people are not often in a position to complain or make a fuss. So, it may be a shocking disgrace, but it is not surprising that services for older people are being lined up to take such deep cuts.

One local authority chief told me that it was a difficult balancing act. He maintained they are trying to target the funding at people who really need it, cutting out those who abuse services.

Given the rigorous means testing and interviews, it seems unlikely that there are legions of elderly care scroungers, sponging off local authorities. Indeed, it is difficult to get many older people to seek help, even if they need it and qualify for it. All too often, one hears stories of older people insisting that they can manage, even when they clearly cannot.  All this will only discourage them further.

But if all those 800,000, who receive no help, were given the assistance they need, how on earth would councils pay for it from their reduced care budgets?

The Select Committee said ‘fundamental changes are needed in the way social care is delivered’. But it acknowledged that until the Government puts a new system in place, there is not much that can be done.

So all eyes are now on the Government. It is due to put forward proposals on the future funding of social care this Spring. Finally an answer to those voices in the wilderness? It couldn’t get any worse… could it?

Unison said the agreement with Bury Council settles a number of equal pay claims from women who were paid less than their male colleagues for doing work of equivalent value. Bury was the first council that Unison targeted with mass litigation for equal pay in 2007.

The union said the council has “wasted” more than £1 million of public money by fighting the claims through the courts. The lengthy legal battle has included more than 30 days of tribunal and appeal tribunal hearings.

Unison said the deal was worth several million pounds to the women. The settlement means that a Court of Appeal hearing, scheduled for March, will no longer go ahead, said the union.

Unison official Steve Stott, said: “This is a great day for the low paid women carers, cleaners, caterers and many others working for Bury council. They have been waiting long enough for pay justice.

“It’s also an historical day – this is the first council that Unison targeted with a mass litigation case for equal pay, after it failed to take the issue of fairness seriously.

“We are pleased that the council has at last accepted its responsibility to treat its women workers fairly. Most of the women’s claims which were first lodged in 2007 and for nearly five years the council has been wasting precious public money trying to defend the indefensible.”

The number of company personnel jobs has increased 20-fold since the 1950s, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) also found.

A report to mark the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee year showed dramatic changes in the world of work and industry, with fewer skilled manual workers and more managerial, professional and technical jobs, as well as more pay inequality.

The number of people in work has increased by six million to 29 million, but one in four people are part-timers, compared to just 4% in the 1950s.

The value of output produced by the economy has quadrupled since 1952, but work-related stress has increased and the rapid advance of technology has led to information “overload”, said the CIPD.

The number of manufacturing jobs has fallen from 8.7 million to 2.5 million, while trade union membership has slumped by three million to 6.5 million.

John Philpott, the CIPD’s chief economic adviser, said: “In the six decades of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, work has continued to be the warp and weft of everyday life.

“Her Majesty’s subjects may devote more of their available time and money to leisure pursuits but even though work has changed in ways that could not be imagined in 1952, the UK still shows no sign of becoming the kind of leisure society predicted by the ‘end of work’ futurologists of yesteryear.

“Although five years into the Queen’s reign as our nation was emerging from post-war austerity the then prime minister Harold MacMillan declared that Britain “had never had it so good”, the average material standard of living was very meagre compared with what in 2012 we also call ‘austerity Britain’.

“Yet in our more unequal society, with the threat of unemployment an underlying concern even during good times, people do not seem much happier about their working lives and many exhibit the symptoms of work-related stress.

“Whatever the future of work, the lesson of the past six decades is that increased productivity and prosperity isn’t enough to enhance the common good in the workplace or society in general.”

The study also showed a widening pay gap between men and women, even though more women are now in employment.

Stereotyped views about women’s spatial skills should be put into reverse gear and beat a swift retreat, it appears following a study by car parks operator NCP giving women a higher average score at parking than men.

An analysis of drivers across the country looking at technique, accuracy and time taken parking gave women a score of 13.4 out of 20 compared to 12.3 for men.

Women are slower than men at parking, taking an average of 21 seconds compared to 16 for men, the study found.

But they scored better on finding a space, positioning the car, reversing into spaces and making sure the car was centrally placed once in a space.

The study found men often missed available spaces by driving too quickly through car parks.

Well over a third of women opted to reverse into spaces – the method preferred by instructors – compared to just over a quarter of men.

Men were also happier with the position of their cars once in the space, with only 29% choosing to start repositioning the car.

A majority of women found themselves shuffling forward and backwards to try to obtain a better final position, the study found, resulting in more than half of women parking centrally, compared to only a quarter of men.

Researchers said the study found men also loved to “pose park” when accompanied by a femalepassenger by opting to squeeze into a small space when a bigger one was available.

The study was conducted by looking at CCTV footage of 453 drivers parking across the country with further research carried out into the views of 2,000 drivers.

The scoring system was designed for NCP by driving instructor Neil Beeson of ITV’s Last Chance Driving School documentary.

He said: “I was quite surprised by the results, because in my experience men have always been the best learners and usually performed better in lessons.

“However, it’s possible that women have retained the information better. The results also appear to dispel the myth that men have better spatial awareness than women.”

Jo Cooper, NCP chief executivesaid: “Parking is our business, so we carried out the research to see how well people park their cars.

“As an interesting by-product of the research, we’ve also found out that there is a difference in parking skills between the sexes, although perhaps not in the way that most people expected.”

>> Or click here to visit our dedicated Women in the Boardroom section, bringing you all the latest news, policy and initiatives designed to boost the number of women at the top of British Business.

By Vicki Owen

Ex-Royal Mail chairman Allan Leighton is joining the battle to get more women on the boards of British companies.

Leighton, who sold Asda to Walmart for £6.7 billion and has been on the board of a string of firms including BSkyB and Lastminute.com, is backing a campaign to encourage more firms to develop their female talent.

As the new deputy chair of An Inspirational Journey, a women in business network and consultancy working with firms such as Morrisons and BT to encourage more women into senior positions, he is leading an initiative that will see chairmen of British firms sent a two minute film calling for change.

He says: ‘The issue for many firms is not why they should appoint women to the board but how they will go about doing this. An Inspirational Journey has developed an effective model to address this issue and enable companies and their women to work together to make some really simple changes to support more women into senior positions.

‘There is clear evidence that shows better gender balanced companies are more successful.’

Heather Jackson, founder of An Inspirational Journey, which is partnered with RBS, says the two minute film was created because chairmen will not take the time to read the recommendations of the Lord Davies report on women in the boardroom.

The report has urged FTSE 350 companies to set out the percentage of women they aim to have on boards and in executive committees by 2013 and 2015. FTSE 100 boards should aim for a minimum of 25 per cent female representation by 2015.

The government is also seeking views on how a ‘senior executive position’ could be defined for this purpose, and if companies can disclose the proportion of female employees where the information is available. The new rules are expected to be in place from October 2012.

Jackson says: ‘We have seen progress since the publication of the Davies Report but we believe that businesses can act more effectively on this agenda, by not just focusing on their current gender balance at board level, but how they are going to ensure that they have plenty of female talent growing through to the executive in the future.’

Other initiatives seeking to increase female representation in British firms include The 30% Club, founded by Helena Morrissey, chief executive officer of Newton Investment Management. which aims to achieve 30 per cent female representation by 2015.

A leading academic at Cambridge University, Professor Dame Sandra Dawson, deputy vice chancellor, has warned that quotas may be the only answer to boosting the number of women on FTSE boards.

In October Cranfield School of Management’s progress report revealed women made up only 22.5 per cent of new appointments.

>> Click here to visit An Inspirational Journey’s website.

The London 2012 chairman stressed that cut-price tickets for children had been sold and added that “we want to be a family friendly organisation”.

He told ITV1′s Daybreak: “It is an anomaly and we accept that.

“We had a scheme for families called Pay Your Age, which allowed you to take a child and pay the age of the child, so if you had a seven-year-old child you’d pay £7.

“We’ve been on that page for a long time but as you quite rightly point out, there are people that have bought tickets that have subsequently had babies.

“We will look at that. We recognise that we want to be a family friendly organisation.”

Women may have a case for sex discrimination if they are prevented from taking babies, including those they are breastfeeding, to the Games.

Under 2012 rules, expectant parents have been told they can try to buy an extra ticket for their chosen event, although there are concerns that none will be available for popular events.

People who get an extra ticket for their baby will be able to hold the infant in their laps but must show a ticket for somewhere in the venue, even if they do not use the seat.

Most tickets went on sale last April – 15 months before the Games.

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (Locog) has said it would reconsider the issue in April when more tickets go on sale.

Over the last few weeks, expectant mothers have described the policy as “discriminatory” on Mumsnet. Liberty has said womencan contact the human rights group for help.

The National Indoor Arena (NIA) in Birmingham, which hosts a range of international sporting events, does not have a strict age policy in place.

“However, we say that generally before a child is walking, we are happy for them to be admitted without a ticket,” a spokesman said.

At Lord’s cricket matches, babies and toddlers under three go in for free.

Wimbledon does not recommend babies are taken. Children under five are allowed in without a ticket – but may not enter Centre Court or the other show courts.

At Wembley Stadium, restrictions vary on an event-by-event basis. For those events which do allow children under 16, all spectators must have a ticket.

At Twickenham Stadium, children under two do not require a ticket but must be securely strapped to an adult sitting in the lower tier.

Shadow public health minister Diane Abbott said she had walked out of a new cross-party abortion group set up by the Government to look at the issue of counselling following the defeat.

She accused the Government of “ploughing ahead” with the controversial abortion changes, saying the new group was a “front” for pushing through the plans which were “unwanted, undemocratic and unsubstantiated with evidence”.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) also expressed dismay at what it sees as aims to implement the changes anyway.

MPs voted by 368 votes to 118 – a majority of 250 – to reject an amendment on the issue by Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries in the Commons in September.

It would have stripped providers including Marie Stopes and BPAS from offering counselling to women.

This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are accused of being influenced by pro-life groups.

Public health minister Anne Milton said just before the vote that the Government would try to implement the spirit of Ms Dorries’ proposal without the need for legislation.

She said: “The Government supports the spirit of the amendments, and we intend to present proposals for regulations after consultation.”

The cross-party group has now been meeting to discuss three proposals, which could include stripping providers of their current role, to form part of this consultation.

The cross-party group includes Ms Milton and Ms Dorries.

Ms Abbott, who voted against the amendment in the Commons, said the Government still intended to strip providers of their roles.

In a letter to Ms Milton, she said: “I entered into the meetings in good faith.

“I was genuinely interested in improving the quality of counselling available to women.

“But I now believe the ‘consultation’ will be a front for driving through the anti-choice lobbyists’ preferred option without legislation or a debate on the floor of the House.”

She added: “There is no doubt which option the Government wants to drive through. There will be no legislation or debate in Parliament.

“These changes are unwanted, undemocratic and unsubstantiated with evidence.

“I think women and families across the country will be as horrified as I am by the way the Government is trying to turn the clocks back.

“The talks that have taken place have been little more than window dressing for what is an aggressive, anti-choice campaign and I am walking away from them.

“It’s a group of ‘Tea Party Tories’ who are determined to plough ahead, despite these policies being decisively rejected by Parliament, by the medical profession and also by the British public.

“I think we need to fight back against these policies.

“Women in this country want to have choice over their fertility and that is a basic human right.”

Critics of the existing system say clinics currently offer biased information, because their funding from the Government depends on the number of terminations they carry out.

Pro-life campaigners believe introducing independent counselling could reduce the number of abortions.

BPAS and others say changing the way counselling is provided would be damaging to women.

Ann Furedi, BPA chief executive, said: “It is shocking that the minister and officials can disregard so blatantly the advice they have received from those who provide care, to pursue the ideologically-driven demands of a handful of MPs who know nothing of how services are run – and have made no effort to find out.

“This is despite an overwhelming Parliamentary defeat of Nadine Dorries’ amendment last year.

“It is wrong for an important aspect of care to be politicised in this way.

“We are frankly stunned that officials can even consider dismantling the existing care pathways which have developed in response to what women want and need, and that they have approved and regulated without any concern until Nadine Dorries tabled her amendment.

“Specialist counselling on unwanted pregnancy simply cannot be delivered by people who don’t understand abortion services.

“Regulations on pregnancy counselling have been in force since 1968. If officials believe they have been abused – they should say so.”

Days before last year’s vote, it emerged Prime Minister David Cameron did not back the amendment.

Ms Milton said: “It’s disappointing when anyone walks away from constructive talks on such an important issue. Talks are continuing encompassing the wide range of views on abortion.

“I believe we have all been encouraged about how constructive they have been and how well the meetings are progressing.

“We will publish the options for public consultation soon.”

Ms Dorries said she found it “bizarre” that Ms Abbott would walk away from the group which would lead to a public consultation on the issue.

She said: “It’s a public consultation. Parliament frequently does not reflect the views of the public on these things.

“It’s not MPs deciding, it’s not Government deciding, it’s not me deciding as an individual – it’s a decision for the public, to have their say.”

She said evidence showed that in some areas of the country where counselling is offered, up to 30% of women do not go ahead with an abortion but in parts of the country where it is not offered, the figure is about 10%.

“A lot of women don’t want to abort but they feel they are on a conveyor belt they can’t get off.”

She said the issue was about whether women should be offered counselling.

Ms Dorries also accused Ms Abbott of only turning up to two out of three meetings and of being late.

A spokeswoman for Marie Stopes International said: “The women we serve every day are of the utmost importance to us.

“Women contact us because they know they can access impartial, non-directive and expert support from trained counsellors.

“It is important that a wide range of views are incorporated into the consultation process.

“As the leading provider of sexual and reproductive health services in the UK, we have a unique viewpoint to add to the consultation and are looking forward to working with the Department of Health, and other interested parties, once it is launched.”

[Press Association] The BBC must ensure there are more women presenters and executives working on its radio network if it is to justify its licence fee, an MP said today after she found that in some cases there were fewer female voices than 25 years ago.

Liberal Democrat MP Tessa Munt discovered that on Radio 2 there were no women with children above the low-ranking assistant producer level, while on Radio 1 only 15% of DJs were female, compared to 16% in 1987.

She said efforts by the Corporation to tackle the issue, which include “further mentoring, further training and succession planning” were patronising as men would not be subject to such scrutiny.

Ms Munt, MP for Wells, said: “The problem is so significant because when you look at the amount of taxpayers’ money used to support the BBC, it is millions, and millions and millions.

“Gender shouldn’t make a blind bit of difference on the radio because how you look is utterly irrelevant. The balance between men and women is actually a systemic problem because exactly the same happens on the radio as it does on television.

“Radio presenters are very serious figures. They are in one of the most influential media because a lot of young people do not necessarily read the papers. They are hugely, hugely influential.”

Ms Munt found that on Radio 1, only six out of the 39 DJs – or 15% – are women, compared to 16% in 1987.

Radio 2 has a slightly higher proportion of women presenters. They account for eight out of 37 presenters but from Monday and Saturday there is not a single female presenter between 8am and 8pm, while on Sundays, Elaine Paige’s show accounts for two hours out of a weekly total 84 hours of daytime output.

In management and production at the station, there is not one woman above low-ranking assistant producer level who has children.

Radio 2 does not have a female presenter with children between 8am and 8pm, while Edith Bowman is the only mother to have a show on Radio 1 during the daytime, she found.

In local radio, the gender balance seems even more biased towards men. Of the 43 local breakfast shows, only one woman has a solo show, while there are only 29 female presenters out of the 80 DJs working on peak-time mid-morning and lunchtime shows.

Out of the 12 regional managers, two were women, while only one of those has children. Of the 40 station editors, nine were women.

Ms Munt added: “Working in radio could be considered ideal for some women as most shows are only two or three hours long and a lot of the preparation work can be done at home.

“I think the BBC are going to have to take this problem seriously because after 25 years we are actually in a worse position.

“The best people available should be on the radio but I just do not believe that the best are all men. It would also be good for business, because the majority of the listening population is female.

“There are no good reasons at all, commercially or economically, for not having more women on the radio. It needs to be sorted out.”

Ms Munt revealed her research following a debate in the House of Commons on Monday, in which Tory MP Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) criticised the BBC for having too few women working on its television and radio shows.

She said there was an “unchallenged format” at the Corporation of pairing a young, blonde female presenter with an older man, as she called on the Government to set up a parliamentary committee to scrutinise sexism and ageism at the BBC.

Culture Minister Ed Vaizey said the Government could not interfere in the BBC’s “operational and editorial” decisions but promised a meeting between Ms Dorries, Ms Munt and the Corporation’s director-general Mark Thompson.

Last month, the BBC became embroiled in a sexism row after it named giant panda Sweetie, also known as Tian Tian, among the women in its Faces of 2011.

The panda, one of a pair newly installed at Edinburgh Zoo, was among 11 other notable names on the BBC list including shot US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, singer Adele and Hackney riot heroine Pauline Pearce.

The BBC was also criticised in November after its shortlist for the Sports Personality of the Year award did not include any women.