Chris Smith lay in a hospital bed, dying of cancer

[Webbo]

Problem is Webbo when this system so frequently ****s up, there is no give, it just pulls the rug from under people's feet. This guy would have no benefits until he won that appeal, but also because of his ailment he wouldn't be able to work. So he had no access to any funds. People on here have said you can't compare the welfare system making mistakes to a hospital messing up a drug dosage, but you can. This is people lives they're ****ing up with shit misguided ill thought out target based decisions. In the case above the guy has gone 6 months with no money whatsoever, and it's ok some of you saying that he should have have money saved as a provision, but if he hadn't what's he meant to do? I mean 6 months, seriously, it's not a instant decision is it, it's a long time to correct their error.

Some of you need to stop looking at the people who being failed by this system as collateral damage in some crusade against scroungers. Doing alright isn't good enough when you're leaving people without a bean to live on for a significant period of time.

Did he have no benefits, or did he have a lesser benefit? How did he keep himself for 12 months,did he work? I don't know.

 

Nobody can invent a perfect system,we all know there are people who swing the lead,it's impossible to get it right every time. He won his appeal,he was going to get back all that was owed when he died . He wasn't murdered by atos or the govt,he died of the illness he was claiming for.

 

As for having to pay for his funeral out of his estate,so what? Don't we all have to do that?

[Jimothy]

Did he have no benefits, or did he have a lesser benefit? How did he keep himself for 12 months,did he work? I don't know.

Nobody can invent a perfect system,we all know there are people who swing the lead,it's impossible to get it right every time. He won his appeal,he was going to get back all that was owed when he died . He wasn't murdered by atos or the govt,he died of the illness he was claiming for.

As for having to pay for his funeral out of his estate,so what? Don't we all have to do that?

Not really addressed a single point I made. ****ing pointless. So blinkered.

[Webbo]

Not really addressed a single point I made. ****ing pointless. So blinkered.

Which point didn't I address?

[Jimothy]

Which point didn't I address?

Firstly that you lot seem to think it's ok for it to take 6 months to correct these errors. Secondly that it's ok for this ****ed up system to pull the carpet from under people's feet when they erroneously decide to tell people go back to work. Thirdly that you think all these mistakes are fine, because mistakes happen, it's not life and death etc, but it is peoples lives.

Second rate should not be good enough. Maybe some of these out of work people could replace some of the people ****ing up the benefit claim and back to work assessments, they'd probably do better. You read back through all the threads on this subject over this forum it seems fine for the job centre to mess up, tick the wrong box, sanction you for missing an appointment for going to an interview etc but if someone ticks the wrong box, leaves a bit of paper at home, misses an appointment for any reasonable reason, then it's their own stupid fault. Double standards

[Vacamion]

Some of you need to stop looking at the people who being failed by this system as collateral damage in some crusade against scroungers.

 

 

I think that if you have a system which makes it easy for people to circumvent any reduction in their benefits, some people will always do whatever they can to stay on benefits, so you end up with people making a living off the system if your deterrents aren't robust enough.

 

The tough measures designed to prevent this mean that genuine errors, genuine deserving cases, end up having to jump through the hoops put there to deter the scroungers.

 

It's a terribly tough balance to strike.

 

If the price of record falls in unemployment and record levels of employment is that there will be a very small number of such regrettable errors, or a more difficult to access system, I think that the "collateral damage", unfortunate as it is, would be a price worth paying. 

 

Therefore, I think that because of "the needs of the many" (a la Bentham) and all that, the "collateral damage" was not a failure by the system.  It was a product of the system. 

 

If only those who brought it about had the intellectual honesty to admit it, we could have had a debate about whether a handful of awful cases (or hundreds, or thousands of them) were worth it, in order to achive what we needed to when the country was facing financial ruin amid a benefits system out of control in 2010.

 

It's too late for that now. It's a case of blame and counter-blame.

 

Personally, I think the balance is about right, but then again I'm not one of those who thinks the system has treated me unfairly.

[Webbo]

Firstly that you lot seem to think it's ok for it to take 6 months to correct these errors. Secondly that it's ok for this ****ed up system to pull the carpet from under people's feet when they erroneously decide to tell people go back to work. Thirdly that you think all these mistakes are fine, because mistakes happen, it's not life and death etc, but it is peoples lives.

Second rate should not be good enough. Maybe some of these out of work people could replace some of the people ****ing up the benefit claim and back to work assessments, they'd probably do better. You read back through all the threads on this subject over this forum it seems fine for the job centre to mess up, tick the wrong box, sanction you for missing an appointment for going to an interview etc but if someone ticks the wrong box, leaves a bit of paper at home, misses an appointment for any reasonable reason, then it's their own stupid fault. Double standards

You said he had nothing to live on for 6 months, I asked if that was true. People who are fit to work but don't have a job still get benefits of some sort. Did he get any benefits or did he work? I don't know, I doubt you do either. It goes without saying that taking 6 months to sort something out is unfortunate and nobody wants anyone to suffer unnecessarily but he wouldn't be the only one appealing and we all know huge bureaucracies never do anything in a hurry. Demanding perfection is one thing, making it happen is a bit harder.

 

On your second point I wouldn't defend the job centres or the people who work there.

[MooseBreath]

Firstly that you lot seem to think it's ok for it to take 6 months to correct these errors. Secondly that it's ok for this ****ed up system to pull the carpet from under people's feet when they erroneously decide to tell people go back to work. Thirdly that you think all these mistakes are fine, because mistakes happen, it's not life and death etc, but it is peoples lives.

In the case of that heart attack guy, this all hinges on whether the decision to stop his benefits and subsequent reinstatement on appeal was indeed the product of an error or whether, and I would suggest more likely, some new evidence was brought to the table that brought about a different result. Stories abound of people missing appointments or not attending job interviews or not applying for enough jobs and consequently having their benefits revoked so it wouldn't be the first time that somebody has failed to fulfil their basic obligations in regards to their claim. You could operate with a greater degree of leeway but that's exactly how the system becomes ripe for exploitation. As Vacamion superbly explains it is about finding the right balance.

[Rincewind]

I see the news about the rise in sanctions is on the BBC website now. These stories were regarded as untrue.

When they stop JSA they stop other benefits too. There is an emergency payment of around £40. Could you live on that?

The human rights act states that everyone should have the means to feed himself and his family. This was not the case in the above or many other cases. i believe it is section 27

It is not unfortunate It is unacceptable in a civilised country in the 21st century. There are many testimonials of people who have worked for years paid tax and NI into the system and fell ill in later years now being told they are scroungers when taking some out of what they have paid in. Now it is being taken off them They are found guilty before a trial. Benefit fraud is 3-7%

I doubt this will get through to some as they have not had any experience or even seen what goes on. So I'll leave them to it.

[Webbo]

Stop playing the victim Ken. No one's called you a liar they've just disagreed with you. There is a difference.

[Ross-Kemp]

Ah yes what a wonderful life we lead in the 31st century.

Ken, just out of sheer curiosity, what would you do to those who do lie and claim fraudulently ?

[Strokes]

Ah yes what a wonderful life we lead in the 31st century.

Ken, just out of sheer curiosity, what would you do to those who do lie and claim fraudulently ?

Holy shit, i have been asleep for longer than i thought.

[Merging Cultures]

The human rights act states that everyone should have the means to feed himself and his family.

Does that extend to benefits though?

Or is it saying that there should be no discrimination in the work place? Whether it is setting up special arrangements for people with disabilities, those who are sick, or even pregnant or breastfeeding mothers?

In my opinion, everyone has the means. This includes ensuring you have insurance in the case of long term sickness or disability, loss of employment etc.

The benefit system is a safety net, but unfortunately people do not take personal responsibility and go straight to benefits. Benefits shouldn't be high enough that petiole forgo personal responsibility. They should be short term and cover basics. Except in certain cases obviously. As many people say on this forum there are many jobs out there, but often people feel they are too good for them.

In this particular case the guy was obviously sick and couldn't work (full-time). But when he was working did he have insurance? What about savings? Or did he expect to fall back on benefits if the worst happened?

[Vacamion]

 

The human rights act states that everyone should have the means to feed himself and his family. This was not the case in the above or many other cases. i believe it is section 27

 

 

Entitlement to money from the state is not a "Human Right".

 

If, as you suggest, such legislation exists, it is a grotesque misreading of what Human Rights are. 

 

People citing "Human Rights" legislation in what should be mere matters of civil law debase the real struggle for Human Rights around the world.  In such circumstances, it's no wonder that right wingers want to abolish or replace ECHR.

[Rincewind]

Stop playing the victim Ken. No one's called you a liar they've just disagreed with you. There is a difference.

 

Holy shit, i have been asleep for longer than i thought.

see my edited post

[Rincewind]

Entitlement to money from the state is not a "Human Right".

 

If, as you suggest, such legislation exists, it is a grotesque misreading of what Human Rights are. 

 

People citing "Human Rights" legislation in what should be mere matters of civil law debase the real struggle for Human Rights around the world.  In such circumstances, it's no wonder that right wingers want to abolish or replace ECHR.

 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

Article 25(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and of his family,including food,clothing,housing and medical care and necessary social services and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness,disability,widowhood,old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.,

 

In the cases above as in most cases they had paid into the system via NI and taxes which is there for instances like this. This entitlement was withdrawn. Not everyone is on a high wage and are able to save enough to last months on end without anoy other source of income. To last 6 months on savings they would at least 5-10000 in the bank. You areputting others in your shoes not the other way round.

 

I have already said in an earlier post that the actual percentage for benefit fraud is 3-7% and I do not think those unable to walk or dying of cancer fall into that bracket. What would I do to the small number that cheat? i have also answered this several times. Like all  that cheats, whether it be through benefits or tax I would give appropriate punishment. I have never said other. What i have said that money should not be wasted punishing the most vulnerable for in order to catch the few. How many more benefit frauds have come to light? Not many I would guess. 70% of those tested at ATOS have gone to appeal with many successes. Of the others a great deal do not have the strength will or are unaware that they can appeal. To appeal takes a lot of stress and worry and if you are at a low level already it can be a daunting process.

[Ross-Kemp]

Ah yes what a wonderful life we lead in the 31st century.

Ken, just out of sheer curiosity, what would you do to those who do lie and claim fraudulently ?

No response Ken?

Why there is a surprise.

Maybe you've been on a tax payer funding all dayer and have fell asleep on the Salt key.

[Rincewind]

No response Ken?

Why there is a surprise.

Maybe you've been on a tax payer funding all dayer and have fell asleep on the Salt key.

I responded. See post above yours.

There is no need for sarcasm. As I had replied I thought there was no need to repeat myself and was willing to let the thread fall off the first  page.

 

I have been busy today. There was a football match going on and as a supporter of one of the teams playing I thought it right that I should listen to it. I would have liked to see it but as a pensioner a season ticket is not a priority when I consider where to spend my NI contributed state pension of around £100

[Ross-Kemp]

I responded. See post above yours.

There is no need for sarcasm. As I had replied I thought there was no need to repeat myself and was willing to let the thread fall off the first page.

I have been busy today. There was a football match going on and as a supporter of one of the teams playing I thought it right that I should listen to it. I would have liked to see it but as a pensioner a season ticket is not a priority when I consider where to spend my NI contributed state pension of around £100

So what you're saying is they deserve to be punished providing they're not vulnerable?

[Rincewind]

I give up. its like banging my head against a wall. If they were defrauding they would not be vulnerable.  So cancer suffers dying in hospital are cheats? Disabled people who cannot move out the house are cheats? Children living on the street are cheats? Mothers who have to choose heat or eat are cheats?

[Ross-Kemp]

I give up. its like banging my head against a wall. If they were defrauding they would not be vulnerable. So cancer suffers dying in hospital are cheats? Disabled people who cannot move out the house are cheats? Children living on the street are cheats? Mothers who have to choose heat or eat are cheats?

Children living on the streets are unlikely to be fraudulently claiming benefits Ken.

The whole 'heat or eat' point is redundant, I can categorically tell you, mothers with children at the property will not be cut off, so it's a moot point.

Right, here's a case for you, I want your opinion on what you would do Ken.

Boy leaves school at 16, moves in with a women 3 years older who already has 2 kids, a council house and never worked a day in her life.

He then knocks her up to the tune of 2 more kids, he's never worked, she continues not to work.

Her 2 brothers also live at the property paying rent which she does not declare, yet they still have time & money to buy and smoke weed all day.

I would class this family as vulnerable, yet they are quite clearly playing & abusing the system.

So ken, what would you do?

[Dr The Singh]

I give up. its like banging my head against a wall. If they were defrauding they would not be vulnerable. So cancer suffers dying in hospital are cheats? Disabled people who cannot move out the house are cheats? Children living on the street are cheats? Mothers who have to choose heat or eat are cheats?

You given up, do you want that one way ticket to Switzerland for the Dignitis clinic?

[Rincewind]

You given up, do you want that one way ticket to Switzerland for the Dignitis clinic?

Good idea.

 

Ross it is up to the law and the rules set down to deal with that 1% of benefit seekers. You have ignored the real life stories and given one that is rare and a common misconception. As I said the small percentage of benefit fraudsters along with tax fraudsters should have the appropriate punishment given to them.

 

Here's one for you. A relative of yours develops cancer. As a result it affects his movement and has to give up the low paid manual  job he has done for forty years which he was able to do well despite having dyslexia  at the age of  63. He is sent a letter by ATOS to attend an assessment. At the assessment he is asked to pick up a pencil off the desk and walk to the door and back. Despite showing a doctors and hospital reports stating that he is unable to get far from the house, needs 10 different kinds of medication a day and suffers fainting spells the assessor declares him fit for work. As a result the DWP stop all benefits and tell him to find a job and say being unable to walk long distances is not a reason for him to be declared unfit. He plans to appeal but the process will take eight months before it goes to court. In the meantime he has no income coming in and after a couple of months the council serves him with an eviction notice meaning he will be homeless.

How would you react?

[Ross-Kemp]

Good idea.

Ross it is up to the law and the rules set down to deal with that 1% of benefit seekers. You have ignored the real life stories and given one that is rare and a common misconception. As I said the small percentage of benefit fraudsters along with tax fraudsters should have the appropriate punishment given to them.

Here's one for you. A relative of yours develops cancer. As a result it affects his movement and has to give up the low paid manual job he has done for forty years which he was able to do well despite having dyslexia at the age of 63. He is sent a letter by ATOS to attend an assessment. At the assessment he is asked to pick up a pencil off the desk and walk to the door and back. Despite showing a doctors and hospital reports stating that he is unable to get far from the house, needs 10 different kinds of medication a day and suffers fainting spells the assessor declares him fit for work. As a result the DWP stop all benefits and tell him to find a job and say being unable to walk long distances is not a reason for him to be declared unfit. He plans to appeal but the process will take eight months before it goes to court. In the meantime he has no income coming in and after a couple of months the council serves him with an eviction notice meaning he will be homeless.

How would you react?

You didn't answer my question, in fact it is a real life scenario as the cretin involved is my 'brother'.

How would I react to that scenario? If he wanted to find work, I would help him find work in which he doesn't have to walk long distances, I.e, in an office.

[Rincewind]

Really/And what sort of office work would you find on a housing estate for a dyslexic wheelchair bound 63 year old who is prone to fits 3-4 times a day and who may need assistance going to the toilet?

And what if he lived 200 miles away?

I would not say the family in your scenario were vulnerable. They have equal or above the living income deemed necessary for a family in their situation. You did not mention any disability or health issues with themselves or the kids. There does not seem to be an under occupancy issue so no bedroom tax. In fact they may be overcrowded. The drug  issue will be dealt with by a crimminal court and depending on how old the children are that will be dealt with by the social services. If not working they will have to follow the same guidelines as anyone else who are fit enough to work.

A person in a sickbed needing 24/7 care is not fit for work. Do you not see the difference? In my scenario he worked for over 40 years in a low paid manual job. Because of his learning disability (dyslexia) he was unable to do a job which required reading and writing and that includes office work.

There are many in a similar position. This has been backed up by testimonies of thos that have had to go through it.

As I have repeatedly said benefit fraud is a small percentage of those claiming it. Infact there is a larger percentage not aware and not claiming what they are entitled to. More money is lost by people going through the claims court through unfair sanctions by the DWP and ATOS than through fraud. They seem to want to get as many people off benefits as possible by any means in order to make the unemployment figures look good. There have been whistle blowers from both the job centres and ATOS who have confirmed that they have targets regarding sanctions and benefit removal.

So as I said in answering your question anyone defrauding the benefit or tax system should be dealt with appropriately as laid down by law for each individual case. I do not know what that punishment is as I do not work in that sector.

 

This thread was about a man dying of cancer who despite being declared unfit for work by medical professionals wasstripped of benefits and told to work when it was obvious to anyone that he was unable to whether he wanted to. He had worked for many years and paid NI which is there for circumstances such as this. He was not 'scrounging' as a living income was his right which he was denied. So let us concentrate on that and how many are treated unfairly and not the odd few who cheat and deserve to be caught and punished. I do not believe that 100 people should be hung to find the one guilty person. You obviously do.

[Ross-Kemp]

Did the stripping of the benefits contribute to this mans death?

Will anyone die from having there benefits stopped?

I work in a position where I speak to a lot of 'state dependent' people on a daily basis, now from my experience, these are people who consider Sky Tv/Broadband/Mobile phones an essential over paying their bills.

I don't buy the bollocks that it's a small number that fraudulently claim.

So yes, I'd rather 100 people have their benefits stopped (and be re-instated and back paid at a later date if they're entitled to them) to catch one cheat.

Benefits should be there to keep you alive, that it all, not to pay for the latest gadgets / designer clothing.