Discussion:
Kick the disabled. They're an easy target
Add Reply
Tom G
2017-02-26 18:19:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.

No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre" decisions
of tribunals.

Ministers say the changes will save £3.7bn but leave a "strong safety net".

But disability charity Scope criticised Mr Freeman's "crude" distinction
between physical and mental health.

And Labour said the comments were "an insult to disabled people".
Understanding anxiety

Responding to criticism online to his interview on BBC 5 live's
Pienaar's Politics, Mr Freeman later tweeted that he had suffered from
anxiety and depression in childhood, adding: "I don't need and lectures
on the damage anxiety does."
Image caption George Freeman has labelled recent tribunal rulings on
disabilities as 'bizarre'

The government is proposing changes to PIPs, which replaced the
Disability Living Allowance (DLA), after two tribunal rulings at the end
of 2016 which it said would have added £3.7bn to the benefits bill by 2023.

The benefit is intended to help people cope with the extra costs of
living with ill health or disability and are made according to the
points a person scores in an assessment of their needs.

In his BBC interview Mr Freeman said: "These tweaks are actually about
rolling back some bizarre decisions by tribunals that now mean benefits
are being given to people who are taking pills at home, who suffer from
anxiety," he said.

"We want to make sure we get the money to the really disabled people who
need it."

The Conservative MP for Mid Norfolk added that he and the prime minister
"totally" understood anxiety. "We've set out in the mental health
strategy how seriously we take it," he added.

After the interview, shadow chancellor John McDonnell tweeted: "This is
an insult to disabled people. (George Freeman) should apologise
immediately or Theresa May should make him."

And Scope chief executive Mark Atkinson said: "It is unhelpful to make
crude distinctions between those with physical impairments and mental
health issues because the kind of impairment someone has is not a good
indicator of the costs they will face.

"Many disabled people will be now be anxiously waiting to hear as to
whether or not these tighter rules will affect their current PIP award.

"The government must offer clarity and reassurance that these new
measures will not negatively affect the financial support that disabled
people receive now or in the future, and that they stand by their
commitment to making no further changes to disability benefits in this
Parliament."
'Trapped'

Disabilities minister Penny Mordaunt said she was reforming the PIP
payments to "restore the original aim of the benefit" to make sure
support was given to the most needy.

Mr McDonnell said he was "furious" about the proposed changes to PIPS,
and said Labour would pressurise the government to reverse them in next
month's Budget.

"Next week the Tories will make out that the economy and the public
finances are doing better, however, they are planning to go ahead with a
£3.7bn cut to the disabled," he said.

The cuts would mean many people with severe disabilities "are going to
be trapped in their homes", he added.

The Liberal Democrats said the government was using court losses "as an
excuse to severely restrict disability benefits".

A DWP spokeswoman said the government was "committed to ensuring our
welfare system is a strong safety net for those who need it".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39097019
tim...
2017-02-26 19:40:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence payments
(PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre" decisions of
tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position

I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled" (by a
reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to work
assessment team)

tim
Brian Reay
2017-02-27 10:10:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.

I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.

However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
The Todal
2017-02-27 10:36:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".

Who are these people who abuse the system? The only way of defining them
is to say that they are people who have been found fit for work despite
having claimed PIP. And then you have to look at who has found them fit
for work - often an unqualified clerk using a computer program and
ignoring the reports from the patient's own doctor.
Brian Reay
2017-02-27 11:30:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
Who are these people who abuse the system? The only way of defining them
is to say that they are people who have been found fit for work despite
having claimed PIP. And then you have to look at who has found them fit
for work - often an unqualified clerk using a computer program and
ignoring the reports from the patient's own doctor.
What of the cases where those 'unfit' have been caught working as
builders, personal trainers, etc?

And which part of "Therefore there is a need for proper assessments,
free of targets for removals etc." wasn't clear to you?

Fitness to work should be assessed by specialist Occupational Health
Doctors, not GPs. Of course, they would take evidence from other doctors
dealing with the person's conditions and needs.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
The Todal
2017-02-27 11:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
Who are these people who abuse the system? The only way of defining them
is to say that they are people who have been found fit for work despite
having claimed PIP. And then you have to look at who has found them fit
for work - often an unqualified clerk using a computer program and
ignoring the reports from the patient's own doctor.
What of the cases where those 'unfit' have been caught working as
builders, personal trainers, etc?
There aren't many, but of course such people deserve to be prosecuted.
Indeed, I've had such people watched by private detectives and have
enjoyed the rare occasions where there was some worthwhile footage
showing deliberate exaggeration.
Post by Brian Reay
And which part of "Therefore there is a need for proper assessments,
free of targets for removals etc." wasn't clear to you?
It was all working fine until the government tendered the work to
private companies and imposed key performance indicators and service
level agreements which inevitably rewarded those who could show that
they "performed" in a satisfactory way. I don't suppose you can
formulate KPIs and SLAs which don't encourage companies to reduce the
number of claimants.
Post by Brian Reay
Fitness to work should be assessed by specialist Occupational Health
Doctors, not GPs. Of course, they would take evidence from other doctors
dealing with the person's conditions and needs.
In the past there were medical boards run by the DWP/DSS/DHSS which
specialised in assessing fitness for work. They knew what they were
doing, and had real medical expertise.
JNugent
2017-02-28 01:23:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
Who are these people who abuse the system? The only way of defining them
is to say that they are people who have been found fit for work despite
having claimed PIP. And then you have to look at who has found them fit
for work - often an unqualified clerk using a computer program and
ignoring the reports from the patient's own doctor.
What of the cases where those 'unfit' have been caught working as
builders, personal trainers, etc?
There aren't many, but of course such people deserve to be prosecuted.
Indeed, I've had such people watched by private detectives and have
enjoyed the rare occasions where there was some worthwhile footage
showing deliberate exaggeration.
Post by Brian Reay
And which part of "Therefore there is a need for proper assessments,
free of targets for removals etc." wasn't clear to you?
It was all working fine until the government tendered the work to
private companies and imposed key performance indicators and service
level agreements which inevitably rewarded those who could show that
they "performed" in a satisfactory way. I don't suppose you can
formulate KPIs and SLAs which don't encourage companies to reduce the
number of claimants.
The government in question was the final *Labour* government. *They*
gave the contract for the new scheme (which was their invention) to ATOS.

But you would never guess that from the hysterical abuse hurled at the
current government for Labour's scheme.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Ophelia
2017-02-28 10:03:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
Who are these people who abuse the system? The only way of defining them
is to say that they are people who have been found fit for work despite
having claimed PIP. And then you have to look at who has found them fit
for work - often an unqualified clerk using a computer program and
ignoring the reports from the patient's own doctor.
What of the cases where those 'unfit' have been caught working as
builders, personal trainers, etc?
There aren't many, but of course such people deserve to be prosecuted.
Indeed, I've had such people watched by private detectives and have
enjoyed the rare occasions where there was some worthwhile footage
showing deliberate exaggeration.
Post by Brian Reay
And which part of "Therefore there is a need for proper assessments,
free of targets for removals etc." wasn't clear to you?
It was all working fine until the government tendered the work to
private companies and imposed key performance indicators and service
level agreements which inevitably rewarded those who could show that
they "performed" in a satisfactory way. I don't suppose you can
formulate KPIs and SLAs which don't encourage companies to reduce the
number of claimants.
The government in question was the final *Labour* government. *They*
gave the contract for the new scheme (which was their invention) to ATOS.

But you would never guess that from the hysterical abuse hurled at the
current government for Labour's scheme.

===

Interesting! I didn't realise that.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
The Todal
2017-02-28 11:25:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
Who are these people who abuse the system? The only way of defining them
is to say that they are people who have been found fit for work despite
having claimed PIP. And then you have to look at who has found them fit
for work - often an unqualified clerk using a computer program and
ignoring the reports from the patient's own doctor.
What of the cases where those 'unfit' have been caught working as
builders, personal trainers, etc?
There aren't many, but of course such people deserve to be prosecuted.
Indeed, I've had such people watched by private detectives and have
enjoyed the rare occasions where there was some worthwhile footage
showing deliberate exaggeration.
Post by Brian Reay
And which part of "Therefore there is a need for proper assessments,
free of targets for removals etc." wasn't clear to you?
It was all working fine until the government tendered the work to
private companies and imposed key performance indicators and service
level agreements which inevitably rewarded those who could show that
they "performed" in a satisfactory way. I don't suppose you can
formulate KPIs and SLAs which don't encourage companies to reduce the
number of claimants.
The government in question was the final *Labour* government. *They*
gave the contract for the new scheme (which was their invention) to ATOS.
But you would never guess that from the hysterical abuse hurled at the
current government for Labour's scheme.
What's this nonsense from you about "hysterical abuse"? It's valid
criticism and it's no good blaming the last Labour government if, after
years of learning the drawbacks of the system, the Tories continue to
implement the same policy.

Labour did a lot of things wrong. Many Labour supporters loathe Tony
Blair. Are they all hysterical, and are the Tories also hysterical for
disliking Tony Blair?
JNugent
2017-02-28 11:37:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
Who are these people who abuse the system? The only way of defining them
is to say that they are people who have been found fit for work despite
having claimed PIP. And then you have to look at who has found them fit
for work - often an unqualified clerk using a computer program and
ignoring the reports from the patient's own doctor.
What of the cases where those 'unfit' have been caught working as
builders, personal trainers, etc?
There aren't many, but of course such people deserve to be prosecuted.
Indeed, I've had such people watched by private detectives and have
enjoyed the rare occasions where there was some worthwhile footage
showing deliberate exaggeration.
Post by Brian Reay
And which part of "Therefore there is a need for proper assessments,
free of targets for removals etc." wasn't clear to you?
It was all working fine until the government tendered the work to
private companies and imposed key performance indicators and service
level agreements which inevitably rewarded those who could show that
they "performed" in a satisfactory way. I don't suppose you can
formulate KPIs and SLAs which don't encourage companies to reduce the
number of claimants.
The government in question was the final *Labour* government. *They*
gave the contract for the new scheme (which was their invention) to ATOS.
But you would never guess that from the hysterical abuse hurled at the
current government for Labour's scheme.
What's this nonsense from you about "hysterical abuse"? It's valid
criticism and it's no good blaming the last Labour government if, after
years of learning the drawbacks of the system, the Tories continue to
implement the same policy.
The contract with ATOS has gone, for one thing. And it would be wrong
not to give credit to ATOS as well as to the current government for
that. ATOS is a respectable and respected company but the contract they
were given by Labour led to the eventually-unacceptable situation, for
them as well as for others.
Post by The Todal
Labour did a lot of things wrong.
Come off it. They weren't THAT good.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Tom G
2017-02-28 15:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
ATOS is a respectable and respected company
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
JNugent
2017-02-28 18:16:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom G
Post by JNugent
ATOS is a respectable and respected company
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
I can accept that there is a cohort of people who will not wish to
accept that truth.

<https://atos.net/en/>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Tom G
2017-02-28 18:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Tom G
Post by JNugent
ATOS is a respectable and respected company
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
I can accept that there is a cohort of people who will not wish to
accept that truth.
<https://atos.net/en/>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
ATOS is a corrupt organisation who the UK government pay
to lie about peoples health in order for said government
to remove benefits which sick people are fully entitled to.
They don't even use doctors to assess they use physiotherapists.
Maybe you would like to see a physiotherapist instead of a doctor
for your own ailments mental or otherwise?

There have been thousands of people dropping dead
shortly after being declared fit by ATOS physiotherapists.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-died-after-fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures

“When I got the letter I was so shocked. It said I was touching my neck
and my back and could reach the floor with my feet – I didn’t even get up"

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/743314/Atos-Motability-Department-for-Work-and-Pensions-Benefits-Work-and-Benefits
JNugent
2017-02-28 18:54:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom G
There have been thousands of people dropping dead
shortly after being declared fit by ATOS physiotherapists.
I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

BTW, every single person who receives money from the DWP eventually
dies. 100% of them. Not one of them escapes.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
The Todal
2017-03-05 18:26:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Tom G
There have been thousands of people dropping dead
shortly after being declared fit by ATOS physiotherapists.
I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.
BTW, every single person who receives money from the DWP eventually
dies. 100% of them. Not one of them escapes.
I think you sometimes need to see accounts from real people rather than
from pundits and politicians.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/26/welfare-sanctions-ken-loach-uk-benefit-system

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/05/jobseekers-dole-guardian-research-government-welfare

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/benefit-claimants-poverty-erratic-sanctions-system-uk
JNugent
2017-03-06 18:07:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by JNugent
Post by Tom G
There have been thousands of people dropping dead
shortly after being declared fit by ATOS physiotherapists.
I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.
BTW, every single person who receives money from the DWP eventually
dies. 100% of them. Not one of them escapes.
I think you sometimes need to see accounts from real people rather than
from pundits and politicians.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/26/welfare-sanctions-ken-loach-uk-benefit-system
Ken Loach isn't a "real person". He's a rich propagandist, which puts
him squarely in the category "pundit" and at a stretch, politician
(wannabe). The page you referenced comes squarely into the same category
as the third one (see below).
Post by The Todal
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/05/jobseekers-dole-guardian-research-government-welfare
A report on the proportion of benefit claimants who fail to satisfy the
rules for receipt or continued receipt of significant sums of other
peoples' money.

What's the relevance of that?
Post by The Todal
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/21/benefit-claimants-poverty-erratic-sanctions-system-uk
Er... yeah...

READ ALL ABOUT IT

"People who have failed to satisfy the conditions for receipt of
Jobseeker's Allowance announce that they were fully entitled, satisfied
every last condition and are innocent victims of the DWP and that their
benefit suspension was absolutely not their own fault".

What do you *expect* them to say?

Aren't the prisons largely full of innocent men?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Altroy1
2017-03-06 22:06:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by JNugent
Ken Loach isn't a "real person". He's a rich propagandist, which puts
him squarely in the category
Of people like Arron Banks, Richard Branson, Roman Abramovich...?
Post by JNugent
"pundit" and at a stretch, politician
(wannabe). The page you referenced comes squarely into the same category
as the third one (see below).
Ken Loach does not have to be poor in order to have insight. In some
respects having money means he can tell the story of others rather than
having worry all the time about paying the rent.
Post by JNugent
READ ALL ABOUT IT
"People who have failed to satisfy the conditions for receipt of
Jobseeker's Allowance announce that they were fully entitled, satisfied
every last condition and are innocent victims of the DWP and that their
benefit suspension was absolutely not their own fault".
What do you *expect* them to say?
Aren't the prisons largely full of innocent men?
Granted that self certification might not always be the best evidence.

Yet there is evidence that it is not only welfare clients that are in
line for mega million pound taxpayer payouts. One ultra wealthy banker,
knighted for "services to banking", oversaw his bank crash only for the
taxpayer to come running to the rescue. He made off with a really nice
golden pension pot to tide him over in his luxury while thousands of
his staff were let go.

Then there are the mega subsidies for farmers and so on:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/farm-subsidies-blatant-transfer-of-cash-to-rich


Meanwhile the sick are declared "fit for work".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/disability-benefits-man-julius-holgate-no-legs-cut-government-pip-climb-stairs-with-arms-dwp-a7606416.html
Post by JNugent
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
A skeleton, found in a Leicestershire car-park, was examined by
ATOS who assessed Richard the Third as being fit for work :)
Tim
2017-03-07 00:34:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
T
Post by JNugent
"People who have failed to satisfy the conditions for receipt of
Jobseeker's Allowance announce that they were fully entitled, satisfied
every last condition and are innocent victims of the DWP and that their
benefit suspension was absolutely not their own fault".
What do you *expect* them to say?
Aren't the prisons largely full of innocent men?
Nevertheless some people convicted of a crime are innocent and shouldn't
be there.
Equally sometimes people are unreasonably sanctioned.
The systems aren't as foolproof as you think.
Post by JNugent
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
--
Please support mental health research
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/
JNugent
2017-03-07 02:14:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by JNugent
"People who have failed to satisfy the conditions for receipt of
Jobseeker's Allowance announce that they were fully entitled, satisfied
every last condition and are innocent victims of the DWP and that their
benefit suspension was absolutely not their own fault".
What do you *expect* them to say?
Aren't the prisons largely full of innocent men?
Nevertheless some people convicted of a crime are innocent and shouldn't
be there.
That's a matter for the appropriate authority to determine.

We don't let prisoners out just because they say they're innocent.
Post by Tim
Equally sometimes people are unreasonably sanctioned.
That's a matter for the appropriate authority to determine.

We don't (or shouldn't) hand money out just because the would-be
recipient insists that he's entitled.
Post by Tim
The systems aren't as foolproof as you think.
How foolproof do you say I believe it to be? I accept the ned for an
appeal system for a start. Nobody is perfect. Not even those who claim
benefits.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Vidcapper
2017-03-07 07:39:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Tim
Post by JNugent
"People who have failed to satisfy the conditions for receipt of
Jobseeker's Allowance announce that they were fully entitled, satisfied
every last condition and are innocent victims of the DWP and that their
benefit suspension was absolutely not their own fault".
What do you *expect* them to say?
Aren't the prisons largely full of innocent men?
Nevertheless some people convicted of a crime are innocent and shouldn't
be there.
That's a matter for the appropriate authority to determine.
We don't let prisoners out just because they say they're innocent.
Post by Tim
Equally sometimes people are unreasonably sanctioned.
That's a matter for the appropriate authority to determine.
But who *are* the appropriate authorities?

Maybe 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes' applies?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
JNugent
2017-03-07 12:56:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Tim
Post by JNugent
"People who have failed to satisfy the conditions for receipt of
Jobseeker's Allowance announce that they were fully entitled, satisfied
every last condition and are innocent victims of the DWP and that their
benefit suspension was absolutely not their own fault".
What do you *expect* them to say?
Aren't the prisons largely full of innocent men?
Nevertheless some people convicted of a crime are innocent and shouldn't
be there.
That's a matter for the appropriate authority to determine.
We don't let prisoners out just because they say they're innocent.
Post by Tim
Equally sometimes people are unreasonably sanctioned.
That's a matter for the appropriate authority to determine.
But who *are* the appropriate authorities?
In the case of DWP, as with most government departments, it is an
officer whose job is to make decisions on cases.

The same applies in HMRC, Immigration, etc.
Post by Vidcapper
Maybe 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes' applies?
Indeed. That's why there's a right of appeal.

But the appeal tribunal is supposed to follow the same rules that the
departmental decision maker followed, though perhaps taking a different
view of the evidence.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Vidcapper
2017-03-07 15:41:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
In the case of DWP, as with most government departments, it is an
officer whose job is to make decisions on cases.
The same applies in HMRC, Immigration, etc.
Post by Vidcapper
Maybe 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes' applies?
Indeed. That's why there's a right of appeal.
But when the body you appeal to works for the same agency, you are
screwed,hence my above latin quote.
Post by JNugent
But the appeal tribunal is supposed to follow the same rules that the
departmental decision maker followed, though perhaps taking a different
view of the evidence.
Exactly.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
JNugent
2017-03-08 01:12:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
In the case of DWP, as with most government departments, it is an
officer whose job is to make decisions on cases.
The same applies in HMRC, Immigration, etc.
Post by Vidcapper
Maybe 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes' applies?
Indeed. That's why there's a right of appeal.
But when the body you appeal to works for the same agency, you are
screwed,hence my above latin quote.
In that case, isn't it a good job that appeal tribunals are part of a
completely different body from the DWP, HMRC, IND, etc?

They are run by the body which runs the court.

Does anyone ever complain that judges are paid by the same taxpayers as
the police?
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
But the appeal tribunal is supposed to follow the same rules that the
departmental decision maker followed, though perhaps taking a different
view of the evidence.
Exactly.
Your answer indiactes that you don't understand what an appeal is.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Vidcapper
2017-03-08 07:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
In the case of DWP, as with most government departments, it is an
officer whose job is to make decisions on cases.
The same applies in HMRC, Immigration, etc.
Post by Vidcapper
Maybe 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes' applies?
Indeed. That's why there's a right of appeal.
But when the body you appeal to works for the same agency, you are
screwed,hence my above latin quote.
In that case, isn't it a good job that appeal tribunals are part of a
completely different body from the DWP, HMRC, IND, etc?
They are run by the body which runs the court.
Does anyone ever complain that judges are paid by the same taxpayers as
the police?
Yes, some do.
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
But the appeal tribunal is supposed to follow the same rules that the
departmental decision maker followed, though perhaps taking a different
view of the evidence.
Exactly.
Your answer indiactes that you don't understand what an appeal is.
I know that an appeal board should be independent of the body which
passed the initial sanction.

On a side issue, the idea of a 'Citizen's Income' has ever greater
appeal - it would eliminate most of the bureaucracy currently needed to
police the welfare state. It could also eliminate the benefits trap.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Handsome Jack
2017-03-08 08:49:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
On a side issue, the idea of a 'Citizen's Income' has ever greater
appeal - it would eliminate most of the bureaucracy currently needed to
police the welfare state. It could also eliminate the benefits trap.
I used to be a (lukewarm) supporter of the idea until I realised that it
cannot work in a society where large-scale immigration is allowed.
--
Jack
JNugent
2017-03-08 19:02:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
In the case of DWP, as with most government departments, it is an
officer whose job is to make decisions on cases.
The same applies in HMRC, Immigration, etc.
Post by Vidcapper
Maybe 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes' applies?
Indeed. That's why there's a right of appeal.
But when the body you appeal to works for the same agency, you are
screwed,hence my above latin quote.
In that case, isn't it a good job that appeal tribunals are part of a
completely different body from the DWP, HMRC, IND, etc?
They are run by the body which runs the court.
Does anyone ever complain that judges are paid by the same taxpayers as
the police?
Yes, some do.
There's no way around it short of us having foreigners as judges, paid
by foreign taxpayers.
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
But the appeal tribunal is supposed to follow the same rules that the
departmental decision maker followed, though perhaps taking a different
view of the evidence.
Exactly.
Your answer indiactes that you don't understand what an appeal is.
I know that an appeal board should be independent of the body which
passed the initial sanction.
And they always are.
Post by Vidcapper
On a side issue, the idea of a 'Citizen's Income' has ever greater
appeal - it would eliminate most of the bureaucracy currently needed to
police the welfare state. It could also eliminate the benefits trap.
Not the same argument.

Many of us could only support it if it were paid in addition to whatever
we get now (just as it is for people who have no income). And without
that condition being satisfied, we could never support it. And maybe not
even then.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Vidcapper
2017-03-09 08:56:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
On a side issue, the idea of a 'Citizen's Income' has ever greater
appeal - it would eliminate most of the bureaucracy currently needed to
police the welfare state. It could also eliminate the benefits trap.
Not the same argument.
Hence my 'on a side issue' comment. ;)
Post by JNugent
Many of us could only support it if it were paid in addition to whatever
we get now (just as it is for people who have no income).
I always assumed that was how it would work.

And without
Post by JNugent
that condition being satisfied, we could never support it. And maybe not
even then.
I can see how it would be anathema to a lot of tories...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
JNugent
2017-03-09 12:07:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
On a side issue, the idea of a 'Citizen's Income' has ever greater
appeal - it would eliminate most of the bureaucracy currently needed to
police the welfare state. It could also eliminate the benefits trap.
Not the same argument.
Hence my 'on a side issue' comment. ;)
Did you not mean that it was related to the issue?
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Many of us could only support it if it were paid in addition to whatever
we get now (just as it is for people who have no income).
I always assumed that was how it would work.
I think you'd be wrong to assume that. The Usual Suspects canvass the
idea that CI would replace all contributory benefits including
Retirement Pension.

I'll tell you what: I'll do something I don't often do - I shall reveal
a little bit of personal financial information (though it applies to a
lot of households, not just us).

We get RP of (a total of) £266.96 a week (and as every April, it's due
to increase next month). It isn't our only income, of course.

Citizens' Income would therefore have to be at least £133.58 a week per
person for us not to be short-changed by any change which removed RP and
substituted CI. But £133.58 per capita isn't even in the running in the
minds of the most rabid of CI supporters. It would involve a drop in
income for us - and a drop in the income we earned by paying into the
state's coffers for a combined total of over eighty years.

The idea is not even-handed - at all - for that very reason.
Post by Vidcapper
And without
Post by JNugent
that condition being satisfied, we could never support it. And maybe not
even then.
I can see how it would be anathema to a lot of tories...
You don't have to be a conservative to see that the idea could never be
acceptable to anyone for whom it means a loss of income.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
abelard
2017-03-09 12:48:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
On a side issue, the idea of a 'Citizen's Income' has ever greater
appeal - it would eliminate most of the bureaucracy currently needed to
police the welfare state. It could also eliminate the benefits trap.
Not the same argument.
Hence my 'on a side issue' comment. ;)
Did you not mean that it was related to the issue?
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Many of us could only support it if it were paid in addition to whatever
we get now (just as it is for people who have no income).
I always assumed that was how it would work.
I think you'd be wrong to assume that. The Usual Suspects canvass the
idea that CI would replace all contributory benefits including
Retirement Pension.
I'll tell you what: I'll do something I don't often do - I shall reveal
a little bit of personal financial information (though it applies to a
lot of households, not just us).
We get RP of (a total of) £266.96 a week (and as every April, it's due
to increase next month). It isn't our only income, of course.
Citizens' Income would therefore have to be at least £133.58 a week per
person for us not to be short-changed by any change which removed RP and
substituted CI. But £133.58 per capita isn't even in the running in the
minds of the most rabid of CI supporters. It would involve a drop in
income for us - and a drop in the income we earned by paying into the
state's coffers for a combined total of over eighty years.
The idea is not even-handed - at all - for that very reason.
Post by Vidcapper
And without
Post by JNugent
that condition being satisfied, we could never support it. And maybe not
even then.
I can see how it would be anathema to a lot of tories...
You don't have to be a conservative to see that the idea could never be
acceptable to anyone for whom it means a loss of income.
there is no difficulty in making the cw change at pension age
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2017-03-09 14:43:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
On a side issue, the idea of a 'Citizen's Income' has ever greater
appeal - it would eliminate most of the bureaucracy currently needed to
police the welfare state. It could also eliminate the benefits trap.
Not the same argument.
Hence my 'on a side issue' comment. ;)
Did you not mean that it was related to the issue?
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Many of us could only support it if it were paid in addition to whatever
we get now (just as it is for people who have no income).
I always assumed that was how it would work.
I think you'd be wrong to assume that. The Usual Suspects canvass the
idea that CI would replace all contributory benefits including
Retirement Pension.
I'll tell you what: I'll do something I don't often do - I shall reveal
a little bit of personal financial information (though it applies to a
lot of households, not just us).
We get RP of (a total of) £266.96 a week (and as every April, it's due
to increase next month). It isn't our only income, of course.
Citizens' Income would therefore have to be at least £133.58 a week per
person for us not to be short-changed by any change which removed RP and
substituted CI. But £133.58 per capita isn't even in the running in the
minds of the most rabid of CI supporters. It would involve a drop in
income for us - and a drop in the income we earned by paying into the
state's coffers for a combined total of over eighty years.
The idea is not even-handed - at all - for that very reason.
Post by Vidcapper
And without
Post by JNugent
that condition being satisfied, we could never support it. And maybe not
even then.
I can see how it would be anathema to a lot of tories...
You don't have to be a conservative to see that the idea could never be
acceptable to anyone for whom it means a loss of income.
there is no difficulty in making the cw change at pension age
That would still leave imminent pensioners with strong incentive to vote
against it.

The way around it would be to not inlude Retirement Pension as one of
the things replaced by CI.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
abelard
2017-03-09 17:58:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
On a side issue, the idea of a 'Citizen's Income' has ever greater
appeal - it would eliminate most of the bureaucracy currently needed to
police the welfare state. It could also eliminate the benefits trap.
Not the same argument.
Hence my 'on a side issue' comment. ;)
Did you not mean that it was related to the issue?
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Many of us could only support it if it were paid in addition to whatever
we get now (just as it is for people who have no income).
I always assumed that was how it would work.
I think you'd be wrong to assume that. The Usual Suspects canvass the
idea that CI would replace all contributory benefits including
Retirement Pension.
I'll tell you what: I'll do something I don't often do - I shall reveal
a little bit of personal financial information (though it applies to a
lot of households, not just us).
We get RP of (a total of) £266.96 a week (and as every April, it's due
to increase next month). It isn't our only income, of course.
Citizens' Income would therefore have to be at least £133.58 a week per
person for us not to be short-changed by any change which removed RP and
substituted CI. But £133.58 per capita isn't even in the running in the
minds of the most rabid of CI supporters. It would involve a drop in
income for us - and a drop in the income we earned by paying into the
state's coffers for a combined total of over eighty years.
The idea is not even-handed - at all - for that very reason.
Post by Vidcapper
And without
Post by JNugent
that condition being satisfied, we could never support it. And maybe not
even then.
I can see how it would be anathema to a lot of tories...
You don't have to be a conservative to see that the idea could never be
acceptable to anyone for whom it means a loss of income.
there is no difficulty in making the cw change at pension age
That would still leave imminent pensioners with strong incentive to vote
against it.
The way around it would be to not inlude Retirement Pension as one of
the things replaced by CI.
any way around it is just administration...

another way is to disallow those on pensions from voting...
after all, their carrots come out of farmers still working..or
out of the ground or out of tins
--
www.abelard.org
Ophelia
2017-03-09 13:41:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
On a side issue, the idea of a 'Citizen's Income' has ever greater
appeal - it would eliminate most of the bureaucracy currently needed to
police the welfare state. It could also eliminate the benefits trap.
Not the same argument.
Hence my 'on a side issue' comment. ;)
Did you not mean that it was related to the issue?
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Many of us could only support it if it were paid in addition to whatever
we get now (just as it is for people who have no income).
I always assumed that was how it would work.
I think you'd be wrong to assume that. The Usual Suspects canvass the
idea that CI would replace all contributory benefits including
Retirement Pension.

I'll tell you what: I'll do something I don't often do - I shall reveal
a little bit of personal financial information (though it applies to a
lot of households, not just us).

We get RP of (a total of) £266.96 a week (and as every April, it's due
to increase next month). It isn't our only income, of course.

Citizens' Income would therefore have to be at least £133.58 a week per
person for us not to be short-changed by any change which removed RP and
substituted CI. But £133.58 per capita isn't even in the running in the
minds of the most rabid of CI supporters. It would involve a drop in
income for us - and a drop in the income we earned by paying into the
state's coffers for a combined total of over eighty years.

The idea is not even-handed - at all - for that very reason.
Post by Vidcapper
And without
Post by JNugent
that condition being satisfied, we could never support it. And maybe not
even then.
I can see how it would be anathema to a lot of tories...
You don't have to be a conservative to see that the idea could never be
acceptable to anyone for whom it means a loss of income.

==

Thanks for that! They are trialling it up here in two places. I suppose
eventually it will become general and like you, we would lose money:(

I didn't realise that would be instead of the pensions we worked for decades
to acquire:( I guess it is one way for them to save money .. at our
expense.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Vidcapper
2017-03-09 15:37:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
And without
Post by JNugent
that condition being satisfied, we could never support it. And maybe not
even then.
I can see how it would be anathema to a lot of tories...
You don't have to be a conservative to see that the idea could never be
acceptable to anyone for whom it means a loss of income.
Well, I was thinking more in ideological terms - the idea of subsidising
'indolence', which I suspect they'd object to, even if it were to be
proven it would save the country money overall.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
JNugent
2017-03-09 16:43:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
And without
that condition being satisfied, we could never support it. And maybe
not even then.
I can see how it would be anathema to a lot of tories...
You don't have to be a conservative to see that the idea could never be
acceptable to anyone for whom it means a loss of income.
Well, I was thinking more in ideological terms - the idea of subsidising
'indolence', which I suspect they'd object to, even if it were to be
proven it would save the country money overall.
*Everybody* objects to subsidising indolence.

Even the indolent (who would be miffed if they had to subsidise anybody,
though mercifully for them, they don't).

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
abelard
2017-03-09 18:05:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
And without
that condition being satisfied, we could never support it. And maybe
not even then.
I can see how it would be anathema to a lot of tories...
You don't have to be a conservative to see that the idea could never be
acceptable to anyone for whom it means a loss of income.
Well, I was thinking more in ideological terms - the idea of subsidising
'indolence', which I suspect they'd object to, even if it were to be
proven it would save the country money overall.
children raisers and granny farmers are not 'indolent'

how do you propose such tests? another thundering great
bureaucracy?
Post by JNugent
*Everybody* objects to subsidising indolence.
Even the indolent (who would be miffed if they had to subsidise anybody,
though mercifully for them, they don't).
they'd none of them be mithed
--
www.abelard.org
Vidcapper
2017-03-10 07:32:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
And without
that condition being satisfied, we could never support it. And maybe
not even then.
I can see how it would be anathema to a lot of tories...
You don't have to be a conservative to see that the idea could never be
acceptable to anyone for whom it means a loss of income.
Well, I was thinking more in ideological terms - the idea of subsidising
'indolence', which I suspect they'd object to, even if it were to be
proven it would save the country money overall.
*Everybody* objects to subsidising indolence.
Even the indolent (who would be miffed if they had to subsidise anybody,
though mercifully for them, they don't).
it's a bit of a red herring though, as the *current* system also does
the same thing, albeit in a less obvious way.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Ophelia
2017-03-07 12:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by JNugent
"People who have failed to satisfy the conditions for receipt of
Jobseeker's Allowance announce that they were fully entitled, satisfied
every last condition and are innocent victims of the DWP and that their
benefit suspension was absolutely not their own fault".
What do you *expect* them to say?
Aren't the prisons largely full of innocent men?
Nevertheless some people convicted of a crime are innocent and shouldn't
be there.
That's a matter for the appropriate authority to determine.

We don't let prisoners out just because they say they're innocent.
Post by Tim
Equally sometimes people are unreasonably sanctioned.
That's a matter for the appropriate authority to determine.

We don't (or shouldn't) hand money out just because the would-be
recipient insists that he's entitled.
Post by Tim
The systems aren't as foolproof as you think.
How foolproof do you say I believe it to be? I accept the ned for an
appeal system for a start. Nobody is perfect. Not even those who claim
benefits.
==============

It looks like people won't need to claim benefits in some places up here.
Generous Sturgeon is giving money away (that we don't have) to everyone in
those areas! No doubt she will be offering it to us all (whether we need it
or not) before long!
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Tom G
2017-03-07 15:23:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Tim
Post by JNugent
"People who have failed to satisfy the conditions for receipt of
Jobseeker's Allowance announce that they were fully entitled, satisfied
every last condition and are innocent victims of the DWP and that their
benefit suspension was absolutely not their own fault".
What do you *expect* them to say?
Aren't the prisons largely full of innocent men?
Nevertheless some people convicted of a crime are innocent and shouldn't
be there.
That's a matter for the appropriate authority to determine.
We don't let prisoners out just because they say they're innocent.
Post by Tim
Equally sometimes people are unreasonably sanctioned.
That's a matter for the appropriate authority to determine.
We don't (or shouldn't) hand money out just because the would-be
recipient insists that he's entitled.
Post by Tim
The systems aren't as foolproof as you think.
How foolproof do you say I believe it to be? I accept the ned for an
appeal system for a start. Nobody is perfect. Not even those who claim
benefits.
Nor those who award them
Post by JNugent
==============
It looks like people won't need to claim benefits in some places up
here. Generous Sturgeon is giving money away (that we don't have) to
everyone in those areas! No doubt she will be offering it to us all
(whether we need it or not) before long!
abelard
2017-02-28 12:56:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Labour did a lot of things wrong. Many Labour supporters loathe Tony
Blair. Are they all hysterical, and are the Tories also hysterical for
disliking Tony Blair?
socialists hate winners...that's why they hate bliar
--
www.abelard.org
The Todal
2017-02-28 13:19:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Labour did a lot of things wrong. Many Labour supporters loathe Tony
Blair. Are they all hysterical, and are the Tories also hysterical for
disliking Tony Blair?
socialists hate winners...that's why they hate bliar
He won millions of pounds and lots of real estate. One of the great
featherers of nests. Those who admire that will no doubt also admire
Donald J. Trump.
abelard
2017-02-28 13:24:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Labour did a lot of things wrong. Many Labour supporters loathe Tony
Blair. Are they all hysterical, and are the Tories also hysterical for
disliking Tony Blair?
socialists hate winners...that's why they hate bliar
He won millions of pounds and lots of real estate. One of the great
featherers of nests. Those who admire that will no doubt also admire
Donald J. Trump.
a lot of things for you seem to be about money...
--
www.abelard.org
The Todal
2017-02-28 13:25:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Labour did a lot of things wrong. Many Labour supporters loathe Tony
Blair. Are they all hysterical, and are the Tories also hysterical for
disliking Tony Blair?
socialists hate winners...that's why they hate bliar
He won millions of pounds and lots of real estate. One of the great
featherers of nests. Those who admire that will no doubt also admire
Donald J. Trump.
a lot of things for you seem to be about money...
A lot of things for Blair and Trump seem to be about money. Wake up and
smell the Danegeld.
abelard
2017-02-28 13:36:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Labour did a lot of things wrong. Many Labour supporters loathe Tony
Blair. Are they all hysterical, and are the Tories also hysterical for
disliking Tony Blair?
socialists hate winners...that's why they hate bliar
He won millions of pounds and lots of real estate. One of the great
featherers of nests. Those who admire that will no doubt also admire
Donald J. Trump.
a lot of things for you seem to be about money...
A lot of things for Blair and Trump seem to be about money. Wake up and
smell the Danegeld.
money has no smell
--
www.abelard.org
Tom G
2017-02-28 15:22:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
Who are these people who abuse the system? The only way of defining them
is to say that they are people who have been found fit for work despite
having claimed PIP. And then you have to look at who has found them fit
for work - often an unqualified clerk using a computer program and
ignoring the reports from the patient's own doctor.
What of the cases where those 'unfit' have been caught working as
builders, personal trainers, etc?
There aren't many, but of course such people deserve to be prosecuted.
Indeed, I've had such people watched by private detectives and have
enjoyed the rare occasions where there was some worthwhile footage
showing deliberate exaggeration.
Post by Brian Reay
And which part of "Therefore there is a need for proper assessments,
free of targets for removals etc." wasn't clear to you?
It was all working fine until the government tendered the work to
private companies and imposed key performance indicators and service
level agreements which inevitably rewarded those who could show that
they "performed" in a satisfactory way. I don't suppose you can
formulate KPIs and SLAs which don't encourage companies to reduce the
number of claimants.
As anyone who has suffered one of these 'assesments' will tell you,
these 'assesors' are not there to medically examine you but to find (or
make up) reasons to get your benefits removed.

the assessor will listen to what you say and then put down exactly what
the hell they want to. In my own case I was refused PIP at the first
assessment. I appealed and also put a complaint into the GMC that the
assessor was not a doctor but a physiotherapist and therefore didn't
have a clue of the ailments that I suffer from and should not be
allowed to judge medical problems.

I was then awarded PIP.
Post by The Todal
In the past there were medical boards run by the DWP/DSS/DHSS which
specialised in assessing fitness for work. They knew what they were
doing, and had real medical expertise.
So why fix something that isn't broke?
JNugent
2017-02-28 01:21:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
Who are these people who abuse the system? The only way of defining them
is to say that they are people who have been found fit for work despite
having claimed PIP. And then you have to look at who has found them fit
for work - often an unqualified clerk using a computer program and
ignoring the reports from the patient's own doctor.
What of the cases where those 'unfit' have been caught working as
builders, personal trainers, etc?
And which part of "Therefore there is a need for proper assessments,
free of targets for removals etc." wasn't clear to you?
Fitness to work should be assessed by specialist Occupational Health
Doctors, not GPs. Of course, they would take evidence from other doctors
dealing with the person's conditions and needs.
100%.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Vidcapper
2017-02-28 07:47:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
What of the cases where those 'unfit' have been caught working as
builders, personal trainers, etc?
Then they can be prosecuted if/when caught.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2017-02-27 11:38:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
of course you do...
Post by The Todal
Who are these people who abuse the system? The only way of defining them
is to say that they are people who have been found fit for work despite
having claimed PIP. And then you have to look at who has found them fit
for work - often an unqualified clerk using a computer program and
ignoring the reports from the patient's own doctor.
--
www.abelard.org
Brian Reay
2017-02-27 12:05:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
of course you do...
I've just looked the film up. It seems to be fiction.

Why would Todal think a work of fiction offered weight to his argument?

What next? Judge Rinder for legal decisions?

Whatever the current hospital soap is for medical advice?

May be Star Trek for technology?
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
abelard
2017-02-27 12:08:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
of course you do...
I've just looked the film up. It seems to be fiction.
Why would Todal think a work of fiction offered weight to his argument?
What next? Judge Rinder for legal decisions?
Whatever the current hospital soap is for medical advice?
May be Star Trek for technology?
just so...
socialism is fiction and supported by fiction...eg the soaps
are stuffed with it...

at the core of socialist propaganda is emotion mongering
in place of factual analysis
--
www.abelard.org
The Todal
2017-02-27 12:13:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
of course you do...
I've just looked the film up. It seems to be fiction.
Why would Todal think a work of fiction offered weight to his argument?
Because it is based on fact, and shows you how the system works. A work
of fiction can make its point better than a factual documentary because
the latter must comply with privacy and data protection considerations.
Post by Brian Reay
What next? Judge Rinder for legal decisions?
Well, that's his expertise. Robert Rinder of 2 Hare Court, specialising
in criminal work and especially fraud and money laundering. Oh, don't
tell me you haven't even watched the Judge Rinder programme and were
assuming that he was an actor?
Post by Brian Reay
Whatever the current hospital soap is for medical advice?
May be Star Trek for technology?
Maybe Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss for their wealth of expertise in
medicine and in law.
abelard
2017-02-27 12:16:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
of course you do...
I've just looked the film up. It seems to be fiction.
Why would Todal think a work of fiction offered weight to his argument?
Because it is based on fact, and shows you how the system works. A work
of fiction can make its point better than a factual documentary because
the latter must comply with privacy and data protection considerations.
it's fiction...but it's still factual
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
What next? Judge Rinder for legal decisions?
Well, that's his expertise. Robert Rinder of 2 Hare Court, specialising
in criminal work and especially fraud and money laundering. Oh, don't
tell me you haven't even watched the Judge Rinder programme and were
assuming that he was an actor?
all court lawyers are actors...it's part of the job
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Whatever the current hospital soap is for medical advice?
May be Star Trek for technology?
Maybe Jeremy Hunt and Liz Truss for their wealth of expertise in
medicine and in law.
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2017-02-28 01:24:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
of course you do...
I've just looked the film up. It seems to be fiction.
It is. I've seen a copy.
Post by Brian Reay
Why would Todal think a work of fiction offered weight to his argument?
What next? Judge Rinder for legal decisions?
Whatever the current hospital soap is for medical advice?
May be Star Trek for technology?
CSI for the state of the art image-rendering?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Ophelia
2017-02-28 10:06:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by The Todal
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May
aide says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre"
decisions of tribunals.
without wishing to imply too much support for his position
I think you'll find that it is that "some claimants are not disabled"
(by a reasonable medical assessment, not the Crapita (whoever) back to
work assessment team)
That is the problem.
I'm all for those who have disabilities getting the support they need-
be it financial or otherwise- such provision is a core value of a decent
society.
However, those who abuse the system need to be weeded out. To claim
there are none is nonsense. Obviously it isn't as simple as branding one
group as frauds, if it were the process would be simple. Therefore there
is a need for proper assessments, free of targets for removals etc.
I recommend an excellent movie, "I, Daniel Blake".
of course you do...
I've just looked the film up. It seems to be fiction.

Why would Todal think a work of fiction offered weight to his argument?

What next? Judge Rinder for legal decisions?

Whatever the current hospital soap is for medical advice?

May be Star Trek for technology?

===

Wouldn't it make life easy for pretendy Lawyers <g>
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
abelard
2017-02-26 19:51:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
--
www.abelard.org
Tom G
2017-02-26 20:24:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
abelard
2017-02-26 20:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 20:24:36 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
being stupid or lazy are also 'disabilities'

why not give them mobility allowances or stupidity allowances
or entertainment allowances?

after all, it's other people's money
--
www.abelard.org
Vidcapper
2017-02-27 08:26:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 20:24:36 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
being stupid or lazy are also 'disabilities'
why not give them mobility allowances or stupidity allowances
or entertainment allowances?
after all, it's other people's money
ISTM the real problem is how to impartially & accurately assessing each
claim.

That should surely be done by medical professionals, rather than DWP
jobsworths whose overriding priority is to reduce the benefits bill,
regardless of any hardship caused.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2017-02-27 08:54:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 20:24:36 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
being stupid or lazy are also 'disabilities'
why not give them mobility allowances or stupidity allowances
or entertainment allowances?
after all, it's other people's money
ISTM the real problem is how to impartially & accurately assessing each
claim.
That should surely be done by medical professionals, rather than DWP
jobsworths whose overriding priority is to reduce the benefits bill,
regardless of any hardship caused.
of course medics also have interests and are also
paid by the government...

they are even paid per patient...so if they don't
please the lead swingers the lead swingers will
move on...
they medic will also come under threats in some
communities or lose their popularity....
--
www.abelard.org
tim...
2017-02-27 09:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 20:24:36 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
being stupid or lazy are also 'disabilities'
why not give them mobility allowances or stupidity allowances
or entertainment allowances?
after all, it's other people's money
ISTM the real problem is how to impartially & accurately assessing each
claim.
That should surely be done by medical professionals, rather than DWP
jobsworths whose overriding priority is to reduce the benefits bill,
regardless of any hardship caused.
well the easy way to do that, with the payment by results system, is to
punishes them for each upheld appeal at 10 times the payment for successful
"exclusion".

That way they would put reasonable effort into making sure that their
assessments are correct

As it is now they get paid for each successful exclusion and lose nothing
for each mistake overturned at appeal, so they just throw mud at the wall
and take the payments for the bits that stick.

tim
Brian Reay
2017-02-27 10:23:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 20:24:36 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
being stupid or lazy are also 'disabilities'
why not give them mobility allowances or stupidity allowances
or entertainment allowances?
after all, it's other people's money
ISTM the real problem is how to impartially & accurately assessing
each claim.
That should surely be done by medical professionals, rather than DWP
jobsworths whose overriding priority is to reduce the benefits bill,
regardless of any hardship caused.
well the easy way to do that, with the payment by results system, is to
punishes them for each upheld appeal at 10 times the payment for
successful "exclusion".
That way they would put reasonable effort into making sure that their
assessments are correct
As it is now they get paid for each successful exclusion and lose
nothing for each mistake overturned at appeal, so they just throw mud at
the wall and take the payments for the bits that stick.
tim
Why pay them on the basis of 'exclusions' at all? Surely the right
result is to ensure only the right (ie those who are disabled) people
get benefits.

There are, without question, those who claim fraudulently but the
criteria to remove them should be that they aren't disabled, not 'head
count'.

One obvious thing to consider. If, for example, someone claims they
can't do xyz yet are found to be doing it, they are automatically
disqualified. No appeals. Regardless if xyz is something physical or
some kind of mental related item.

Disqualifications should extend to all 'money' benefits for life- if you
are caught 'fiddling' one benefit, you can't ever claim another-
including your pension.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
tim...
2017-02-27 13:53:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by tim...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 20:24:36 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
being stupid or lazy are also 'disabilities'
why not give them mobility allowances or stupidity allowances
or entertainment allowances?
after all, it's other people's money
ISTM the real problem is how to impartially & accurately assessing
each claim.
That should surely be done by medical professionals, rather than DWP
jobsworths whose overriding priority is to reduce the benefits bill,
regardless of any hardship caused.
well the easy way to do that, with the payment by results system, is to
punishes them for each upheld appeal at 10 times the payment for
successful "exclusion".
That way they would put reasonable effort into making sure that their
assessments are correct
As it is now they get paid for each successful exclusion and lose
nothing for each mistake overturned at appeal, so they just throw mud at
the wall and take the payments for the bits that stick.
tim
Why pay them on the basis of 'exclusions' at all?
because the government perceived that payment by results costs them less
Post by Brian Reay
Surely the right result is to ensure only the right (ie those who are
disabled) people get benefits.
that's not the issue

the issue is how do you pay for the work of assessing who is and who isn't
eligible

tim
JNugent
2017-02-28 01:19:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 20:24:36 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
being stupid or lazy are also 'disabilities'
why not give them mobility allowances or stupidity allowances
or entertainment allowances?
after all, it's other people's money
ISTM the real problem is how to impartially & accurately assessing each
claim.
That should surely be done by medical professionals, rather than DWP
jobsworths whose overriding priority is to reduce the benefits bill,
regardless of any hardship caused.
No member of DWP staff assesses or diagnoses illness of any sort.

But as you imply above, the matter of a lifetime on benefits cannot be
left to one tem-minute examination slot by the claimant's own GP and
never lokked at again.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Vidcapper
2017-02-28 07:45:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
ISTM the real problem is how to impartially & accurately assessing each
claim.
That should surely be done by medical professionals, rather than DWP
jobsworths whose overriding priority is to reduce the benefits bill,
regardless of any hardship caused.
No member of DWP staff assesses or diagnoses illness of any sort.
No - but they can decide whether or not not to accept medical evidence.
Post by JNugent
But as you imply above, the matter of a lifetime on benefits cannot be
left to one tem-minute examination slot by the claimant's own GP and
never lokked at again.
Then the next, obvious, question is how often they should be reassessed?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
JNugent
2017-02-28 11:33:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
ISTM the real problem is how to impartially & accurately assessing each
claim.
That should surely be done by medical professionals, rather than DWP
jobsworths whose overriding priority is to reduce the benefits bill,
regardless of any hardship caused.
No member of DWP staff assesses or diagnoses illness of any sort.
No - but they can decide whether or not not to accept medical evidence.
They HAVE to do that. That's their job. It always has been.

Medical people make medical assessments. Non-medical civil servants make
decisions on entitlement to benefits and only on entitlement to benefits.
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
But as you imply above, the matter of a lifetime on benefits cannot be
left to one tem-minute examination slot by the claimant's own GP and
never lokked at again.
Then the next, obvious, question is how often they should be reassessed?
That has to depend on the nature of the claimed illness or disability
and therefore upon the odds on or against recovery or partial recovery.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
abelard
2017-02-28 12:57:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
That has to depend on the nature of the claimed illness or disability
and therefore upon the odds on or against recovery or partial recovery.
there are some that will only recover if they go to lourdes...

there are others that recover the moment your back is turned!
--
www.abelard.org
Vidcapper
2017-02-28 15:55:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
No member of DWP staff assesses or diagnoses illness of any sort.
No - but they can decide whether or not not to accept medical evidence.
They HAVE to do that. That's their job. It always has been.
But they are under constant extreme pressure to reduce the benefits
bill, and appear to have less soul than Count Dracula.
Post by JNugent
Medical people make medical assessments. Non-medical civil servants make
decisions on entitlement to benefits and only on entitlement to benefits.
Such lack of empathy is why people hate jobsworths!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
JNugent
2017-02-28 18:18:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
No member of DWP staff assesses or diagnoses illness of any sort.
No - but they can decide whether or not not to accept medical evidence.
They HAVE to do that. That's their job. It always has been.
But they are under constant extreme pressure to reduce the benefits
bill, and appear to have less soul than Count Dracula.
Do you have any evidence for that bullish assertion?
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Medical people make medical assessments. Non-medical civil servants make
decisions on entitlement to benefits and only on entitlement to benefits.
Such lack of empathy is why people hate jobsworths!
The job of the DWP is NOT to just hand out the money to anyone who asks
for it. Likewise, the job of HMRC is not just to grab as much as it can
in taxes, duties, VAT, etc.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Vidcapper
2017-03-01 07:36:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
No member of DWP staff assesses or diagnoses illness of any sort.
No - but they can decide whether or not not to accept medical evidence.
They HAVE to do that. That's their job. It always has been.
But they are under constant extreme pressure to reduce the benefits
bill, and appear to have less soul than Count Dracula.
Do you have any evidence for that bullish assertion?
OK, I'll retract the vampire metaphor.
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Medical people make medical assessments. Non-medical civil servants make
decisions on entitlement to benefits and only on entitlement to benefits.
Such lack of empathy is why people hate jobsworths!
The job of the DWP is NOT to just hand out the money to anyone who asks
for it.
Likewise, the job of HMRC is not just to grab as much as it can
Post by JNugent
in taxes, duties, VAT, etc.
Then they are fortunate it's just a happy bonus. :p
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
JNugent
2017-03-01 11:21:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
No member of DWP staff assesses or diagnoses illness of any sort.
No - but they can decide whether or not not to accept medical evidence.
They HAVE to do that. That's their job. It always has been.
But they are under constant extreme pressure to reduce the benefits
bill, and appear to have less soul than Count Dracula.
Do you have any evidence for that bullish assertion?
OK, I'll retract the vampire metaphor.
I wasn't aven addressing that obvious nonsense.

What evidence do you have for the assertion that officers at DWP are
"under constant extreme pressure to reduce the benefits bill"?

Let me just remind you that "the benefits bill" is a top-level Treasury
concept and that one thing of which you can be pretty certain is that
no-one below the grade of Permanent Secretary in the civil service would
have anything to do with it apart from doing the typing. [Permanant
Secretary is much more grand than the title sounds, BTW.]

Assuming you meant that junior officers in local offices are "under
constant extreme pressure to" deny benefit to claimants, what evidence
do you have for that?
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Post by Vidcapper
Post by JNugent
Medical people make medical assessments. Non-medical civil servants
make decisions on entitlement to benefits and only on entitlement to
benefits.
Such lack of empathy is why people hate jobsworths!
The job of the DWP is NOT to just hand out the money to anyone who asks
for it.
Likewise, the job of HMRC is not just to grab as much as it can
Post by JNugent
in taxes, duties, VAT, etc.
Then they are fortunate it's just a happy bonus. :p
Whatever that means...


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian Reay
2017-02-27 10:11:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
What about those who fake it?
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
Tim
2017-02-27 11:25:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
Abelard has a well known antipathy towards the mentally ill. His
knowledge of mental health problems is risible.
abelard
2017-02-27 11:26:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
Abelard has a well known antipathy towards the mentally ill.
liar
Post by Tim
His
knowledge of mental health problems is risible.
that's why you keep retiring hurt when questioned
--
www.abelard.org
Tim
2017-02-27 11:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
Abelard has a well known antipathy towards the mentally ill.
liar
Post by Tim
His
knowledge of mental health problems is risible.
that's why you keep retiring hurt when questioned
I've yet to see you answer much in an intelligent manner.
abelard
2017-02-27 11:36:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
Abelard has a well known antipathy towards the mentally ill.
liar
Post by Tim
His
knowledge of mental health problems is risible.
that's why you keep retiring hurt when questioned
I've yet to see you answer much in an intelligent manner.
you, like so many in the cult...have fixed religious view which
you do not like questioned...

i suspect you also wish to continue to collect your handouts

confusions in the mind, are not bits of your body falling
off...most of the time you can do a great deal about
them...
neither are they essentially 'medical' matters...

going on soma and/or expecting a magical 'cure' is a poor model

your notion of 'a intelligent manner' is hoping for agreement
with the uninformed nonsense you tend to post...
--
www.abelard.org
Tim
2017-02-27 11:41:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
Abelard has a well known antipathy towards the mentally ill.
liar
Post by Tim
His
knowledge of mental health problems is risible.
that's why you keep retiring hurt when questioned
I've yet to see you answer much in an intelligent manner.
you, like so many in the cult...have fixed religious view which
you do not like questioned...
i suspect you also wish to continue to collect your handouts
confusions in the mind, are not bits of your body falling
off...most of the time you can do a great deal about
them...
neither are they essentially 'medical' matters...
going on soma and/or expecting a magical 'cure' is a poor model
your notion of 'a intelligent manner' is hoping for agreement
with the uninformed nonsense you tend to post...
There you go again spouting unintelligent rubbish.
abelard
2017-02-27 11:44:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
Abelard has a well known antipathy towards the mentally ill.
liar
Post by Tim
His
knowledge of mental health problems is risible.
that's why you keep retiring hurt when questioned
I've yet to see you answer much in an intelligent manner.
you, like so many in the cult...have fixed religious view which
you do not like questioned...
i suspect you also wish to continue to collect your handouts
confusions in the mind, are not bits of your body falling
off...most of the time you can do a great deal about
them...
neither are they essentially 'medical' matters...
going on soma and/or expecting a magical 'cure' is a poor model
your notion of 'a intelligent manner' is hoping for agreement
with the uninformed nonsense you tend to post...
There you go again spouting unintelligent rubbish.
there you go again dodging
--
www.abelard.org
Tim
2017-02-27 11:49:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
Abelard has a well known antipathy towards the mentally ill.
liar
Post by Tim
His
knowledge of mental health problems is risible.
that's why you keep retiring hurt when questioned
I've yet to see you answer much in an intelligent manner.
you, like so many in the cult...have fixed religious view which
you do not like questioned...
i suspect you also wish to continue to collect your handouts
confusions in the mind, are not bits of your body falling
off...most of the time you can do a great deal about
them...
neither are they essentially 'medical' matters...
going on soma and/or expecting a magical 'cure' is a poor model
your notion of 'a intelligent manner' is hoping for agreement
with the uninformed nonsense you tend to post...
There you go again spouting unintelligent rubbish.
there you go again dodging
If you had anything sensible to say I might answer.
abelard
2017-02-27 11:58:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by Tom G
Post by abelard
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:19:44 +0000, Tom G
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
so are you against such aid going to those who actually
need it?
Not at all which is the point of the post unless you don't consider
mental illnesses disabilities.
Abelard has a well known antipathy towards the mentally ill.
liar
Post by Tim
His
knowledge of mental health problems is risible.
that's why you keep retiring hurt when questioned
I've yet to see you answer much in an intelligent manner.
you, like so many in the cult...have fixed religious view which
you do not like questioned...
i suspect you also wish to continue to collect your handouts
confusions in the mind, are not bits of your body falling
off...most of the time you can do a great deal about
them...
neither are they essentially 'medical' matters...
going on soma and/or expecting a magical 'cure' is a poor model
your notion of 'a intelligent manner' is hoping for agreement
with the uninformed nonsense you tend to post...
There you go again spouting unintelligent rubbish.
there you go again dodging
If you had anything sensible to say I might answer.
you won't answer because it would reveal your real motivations
--
www.abelard.org
The Todal
2017-02-27 12:15:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
ement
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
with the uninformed nonsense you tend to post...
There you go again spouting unintelligent rubbish.
there you go again dodging
If you had anything sensible to say I might answer.
you won't answer because it would reveal your real motivations
I suppose that right hand of yours must suffer from cramp, which is why
you can't manage the shift key.
abelard
2017-02-27 12:19:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by abelard
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
ement
Post by Tim
Post by abelard
with the uninformed nonsense you tend to post...
There you go again spouting unintelligent rubbish.
there you go again dodging
If you had anything sensible to say I might answer.
you won't answer because it would reveal your real motivations
I suppose that right hand of yours must suffer from cramp, which is why
you can't manage the shift key.
it might...if your assumption were correct...

but they never are
--
www.abelard.org
Tim
2017-02-27 11:21:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre" decisions
of tribunals.
Ministers say the changes will save £3.7bn but leave a "strong safety net".
But disability charity Scope criticised Mr Freeman's "crude" distinction
between physical and mental health.
And Labour said the comments were "an insult to disabled people".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39097019
So much for claims of a move towards parity of esteem. It seems to be
official government policy to abuse the mentally ill .

At least the Tory mp Heidi Allen has spoken out against the move.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tory-mp-heidi-allen-tells-government-not-to-cut-mental-health-disability-payments_uk_58b3eaf9e4b060480e097d69?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics
Handsome Jack
2017-02-27 15:10:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Tom G
Disability benefits should go to "really disabled people" not those
"taking pills at home, who suffer from anxiety", a key Theresa May aide
says.
No 10 policy unit head George Freeman said personal independence
payments (PIP) reforms were needed to roll back the "bizarre" decisions
of tribunals.
Ministers say the changes will save £3.7bn but leave a "strong safety net".
But disability charity Scope criticised Mr Freeman's "crude" distinction
between physical and mental health.
And Labour said the comments were "an insult to disabled people".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39097019
So much for claims of a move towards parity of esteem. It seems to be
official government policy to abuse the mentally ill .
Who abused the mentally ill?
--
Jack
Loading...