Quadruple amputee told to prove he still needs PIP

[willman 10]

No you don't, your sympathy could be greater, if which case you wouldn't be posting justifications for the governments inhumane 'assessment' system which has lead to hundreds of deaths of vulnerable adults.

 

No it isn't. It's a coherent document with little, if any ambiguity whatsoever.

 

 

 

If there is a name on that list of someone who "tragically committed suicide when they had never claimed benefits at all", I consider it outweighed by the hundreds of others on it who were more akin to this small selection of the document-

 

 

 

along with hundreds more for anyone who wishes to peruse the entire list.

 

It's not ambiguous- it's quite simply a list of vulnerable and/or disabled adults now dead for the very simple reason they were declared wrongly 'fit for work' and had their benefits removed, leaving them unable to buy food and pay rent. Most of them committed suicide rather than lose all they had left- their homes.

 

It which case the unambiguous follow up question is should we let anyone and everyone claim benefits including health benefits just because the state is fearful that some will be upset by the alternate suggestion.

Everyone has heard of stories of illegal claims,dodgy backs etc

 

How would you stem the flow false claims? We can't treble the taxes used for benefit payments to pay everyone.

 

I meet almost daily dozens of people living on benefits including those in limbo over claims for health and other benefits.I'd hate to think any of them were as vulnerable as those in the list but they could be - however i can readily identify those who aren't vulnerable,likely to lose the benefit or are unfit for work.

[onewheeldave 22]

Pardon? I have every sympathy for someone who has had their benefit stopped when they were in genuine need. Please don't tell me what I feel from the top of your high horse; it's an emotive subject but that's no need to blinker yourself to differing viewpoints.

 

No, you clearly do not have every sympathy- you could have more sympathy- you're supporting a process which has, is and will continue to, push fragile people over the edge into suicide.

Please read your source beyond the first few lines.

 

The process is simple;

 

a) Fill in a form with details of your claim

b) You may be asked for an assessment

c) A decision is made to see if you can continue to claim

 

It's clear that at point c) there are some horrendous mistakes being made, and I'm not going to defend that at all. My own mother had her disability stopped even though she is plainly unable to work after filling in the (huge) form at point a)

The process is NOT simple- I've been through it myself and it is torturous and degrading. Especially as many of the victims of it are, for example, autistic and at a severe disadvantage when it comes to filling in long, badly worded forms and dealing with the incompetance of the DWP admin systems.

Your list is very ambiguous indeed; it includes people who have passed away even before they reached point a) or b). This was my point earlier. I'm not about to go through it line by line, but a quick glance would suggest only a third of that list are people who actually had benefits stopped. If these are the figures being quoted then they are wrong. You can't blame the tragic deaths of people on ATOS and the DWP due to benefit cuts and give examples of people who didn't even claim or have benefit stopped.

 

Well, you're going to have to go through it line-by-line if you want to produce some actual evidence of your bizarre claims that "only a third of that list are people who actually had benefits stopped".

 

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but, this process is killing vulnerable adults, and people like you are letting it happen through your system apologism and denial of the truth.

 

This process needs ending now- and, if that means a small amount of malingerers getting benefits they're not entitled to, so be it. Because the alternative is genuinely vulnerable adults dying.

 

Plus, you'll get at least as much fraud as this process is so distressing and degrading, that many genuinely disabled/ill/vulnerable people cannot actually complete it.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2016 at 11:21 ----------

 

It which case the unambiguous follow up question is should we let anyone and everyone claim benefits including health benefits just because the state is fearful that some will be upset by the alternate suggestion.

Yes. Because it would stop genuinely vulnerable adults commiting suicide through the threat of losing their home.

 

And something along the lines of-

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

 

would also make benefit fraud impossible.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2016 at 11:22 ----------

 

...however i can readily identify those who aren't vulnerable,likely to lose the benefit or are unfit for work.

 

Maybe you should apply for a job with ATOS then, cos they clearly can't.

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

No, you clearly do not have every sympathy- you could have more sympathy- you're supporting a process which has, is and will continue to, push fragile people over the edge into suicide.

The process is NOT simple- I've been through it myself and it is torturous and degrading. Especially as many of the victims of it are, for example, autistic and at a severe disadvantage when it comes to filling in long, badly worded forms and dealing with the incompetance of the DWP admin systems.

Well, you're going to have to go through it line-by-line if you want to produce some actual evidence of your bizarre claims that "only a third of that list are people who actually had benefits stopped".

 

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but, this process is killing vulnerable adults, and people like you are letting it happen through your system apologism and denial of the truth.

 

This process needs ending now- and, if that means a small amount of malingerers getting benefits they're not entitled to, so be it. Because the alternative is genuinely vulnerable adults dying.

 

Plus, you'll get at least as much fraud as this process is so distressing and degrading, that many genuinely disabled/ill/vulnerable people cannot actually complete it.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2016 at 11:21 ----------

 

Yes. Because it would stop genuinely vulnerable adults commiting suicide through the threat of losing their home.

 

And something along the lines of-

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

 

would also make benefit fraud impossible.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2016 at 11:22 ----------

 

 

Maybe you should apply for a job with ATOS then, cos they clearly can't.

 

Are you in employment onewheeldave? I'm guessing not.

 

The link you provided obviously shows people who deserve the benefits, others i'm not so sure.

[onewheeldave 22]

Are you in employment onewheeldave?

 

Yes.

 

 

The link you provided obviously shows people who deserve the benefits, others i'm not so sure.

Yes, the link does show people who deserved the benefits (past tense due to the fact that they are all now dead, after been denied the benefits they deserved, and were therefore unable to buy food or pay rent).

 

Benefit fraudsters are irrelevant to, and, in no way a justification for, the inhumane benefits system that caused the deaths of those who did deserve benefits.

 

And, when benefit fraud measures lead to the deaths of those who are rightfully entitled to benefits, it's time to stop those measures.

 

Because if turning over a few fraudsters also involves innocent vulnerable adults dying unecessarily, it is totally unfit for purpose, immoral, and, may well lead to the same consequences as it did the last time a nation decided to persecute the vulnerable and disabled. Remember we all said 'never again' after that one?

[the_bloke 17]

Well, you're going to have to go through it line-by-line if you want to produce some actual evidence of your bizarre claims that "only a third of that list are people who actually had benefits stopped".

 

If you really want me to, I will; I'm not exactly sure why I'm bothering as it's your source so you should trust the data within. It feels rather heartless to be doing so, as each person who had their disability benefits cut because they were told incorrectly they were fit to work is a travesty and I'm not defending that no matter what you think.

 

Synopsis of the list, highlighting people who incorrectly had disability benefits cut:

 

1) Terry McGarvey - died at the assessment

2) Elaine Lowe - fearful of losing benefits

3) Mark Wood - had benefits cut

4) Paul Reekie - had benefits cut

5) Leanne Chambers - asked to have an assessment

6) Karen Sherlock - had benefits cut

7) Carl Payne - fearful of losing beneftis

8 ) Tim Salter - had benefits cut

9) Edward Jacques - had benefits cut

10) Linda Wootton - had benefits cut

 

11) Steve Cawthra - no reference to disability benefits

12) Elenore Tatton - had benefits cut

13) John Walker - bedroom tax

14) Brian McArdle - had benefits cut

15) Stephen Hill - had benefits cut

16) Jacqueline Harris - had benefits cut

17) David Barr - had benefits cut

18 ) David Groves - died before the assessment

19) Nicholas Peter Barker - had benefits cut

20) Mark and Helen Mullins - were in receipt of benefits

 

21) Richard Sanderson - no reference to disability benefits

22) Martin Rust - had benefits cut

23) Craig Monk - fearful of losing benefits

24) Colin Traynor - had benefits cut

25) Elaine Christian - fearful of losing benefits

26) Christelle Pardoe - JSA and HB, wasn't disabled

27) Mark Scott - had benefits cut

28 ) Cecilia Burns - had benefits cut

29) Chris Cann - fearful of losing benefits

30) Peter Hodgson - fearful of losing benefits

 

31) Paul Willcoxsin - fearful of losing benefits

32) Stephanie Bottrill - bedroom tax

33) Larry Newman - had benefits cut

34) Paul Turner - can argue the toss about this one. Even his own doctor said he could work, and he had a heart attack whilst on holiday in the south of France. Giving the benefit of the doubt though

35) Christopher Harkness - nothing to do with his personal benefits

36) Sandra Moon - fearful of losing benefits

37) Lee Robinson - HB and Council tax

38 ) David Coupe - had benefits cut

39) Michael McNicholas - fearful of losing benefits

40) Victor Cuff - had benefits cut

 

41) Charles Barden - bedroom tax

42) Ian Caress - had benefits cut

43) Iain Hodge - had benefits cut

44) Wayne Grew - fearful of losing his job

45) Kevin Bennett - JSA

46) David Harries - no evidence he was on benefits

47) Denis Jones - bedroom tax

48 ) Shaun Pilkington - had benefits cut

49) Paul ? - had benefits cut

50) Chris MaGuire - article in the Socialist Worker makes no link between benefit cuts and cause of death

 

51) Peter Duut - had no right to UK benefits

52) George Scollen - lost his job at Remploy

53) Julian Little - bedroom tax

54) Miss DE - had benefits cut

55) Robert Barlow - had benefits cut

56) Carl Foster-Brown - no reference to disability

56) Martin Hadfield - not disabled, wasn't on benefits

57) Annette Francis - had benefits cut

58 ) Ian Jordan - had benefits cut

59) Janet McCall - had benefits cut

60) Stuart Holley - JSA

 

61) Graham Shawcross - had benefits cut

62) David Clapson - JSA

63) Chris Smith - had benefits cut

64) Nathan Hartwell - had benefits cut after cycling from John O'Groats to Lands End for charity

65) Michael Connolly - no reference to disability

66) Jan Mandeville - bedroom tax

67) Trevor Drakard - fearful of losing benefits

68 ) Unknown - bedroom tax

 

32 of 68 - so my apologies, my guesstimate of a third was wrong, it's actually just under half of that list that reference disabled people having benefits stopped by ATOS. I reiterate, even one person is one too many, but that source is in effect 'dirty data'.

Edited February 20, 2016 by the_bloke
The 8 ) smilies are rather inappropriate in this context..

[Anna B 1,401]

Pardon? I have every sympathy for someone who has had their benefit stopped when they were in genuine need. Please don't tell me what I feel from the top of your high horse; it's an emotive subject but that's no need to blinker yourself to differing viewpoints.

 

 

 

Please read your source beyond the first few lines.

 

The process is simple;

 

a) Fill in a form with details of your claim

b) You may be asked for an assessment

c) A decision is made to see if you can continue to claim

 

It's clear that at point c) there are some horrendous mistakes being made, and I'm not going to defend that at all. My own mother had her disability stopped even though she is plainly unable to work after filling in the (huge) form at point a)

 

Your list is very ambiguous indeed; it includes people who have passed away even before they reached point a) or b). This was my point earlier. I'm not about to go through it line by line, but a quick glance would suggest only a third of that list are people who actually had benefits stopped. If these are the figures being quoted then they are wrong. You can't blame the tragic deaths of people on ATOS and the DWP due to benefit cuts and give examples of people who didn't even claim or have benefit stopped.

 

It doesn't overlook the real issue though - if genuine people are having benefits stopped, then it's not the form filling and interview process that is wrong, it's the human making the final decision.

The human making the final decision works to a strict protocol designed to take the autonomy out of the final decision. Judgement and common sense don't seem to come into it. This is true of the entire process, so it is the form, the interview, the whole process that is wrong.

 

It's a tick box exercise and some humans simply don't fit into boxes.

[the_bloke 17]

[/b]

The human making the final decision works to a strict protocol designed to take the autonomy out of the final decision. Judgement and common sense don't seem to come into it. This is true of the entire process, so it is the form, the interview, the whole process that is wrong.

 

It's a tick box exercise and some humans simply don't fit into boxes.

 

What's the alternative? The old way, where a GP would say someone isn't fit to work yet the GP in the room next door would say they are fine? Do you think ATOS would have signed this guy off as being unfit to work?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3418941/Married-father-five-benefits-cheat-swindled-67-000-disability-payouts-claiming-barely-walk-managed-climb-10-flights-stairs-work-played-cricket-weekend.html

 

It's no good declaring the current system as unfit for purpose when the old one wasn't any better and no one seems to be putting forward a credible alternative.

[I1L2T3 10]

Once again the at all costs defence of everything this rotten government does.

 

Many posters now defending these assessments would, let's face it, be tearing the government apart on this thread if this was happening under Labour.

[the_bloke 17]

Once again the at all costs defence of everything this rotten government does.

 

Many posters now defending these assessments would, let's face it, be tearing the government apart on this thread if this was happening under Labour.

 

I've already pointed out it's faults; people are wrongly being classed as fit for work. If you want to politicise it, I could say that there is no surprise that the system has issues considering it was brought in by Labour in 2008.

[onewheeldave 22]

It's no good declaring the current system as unfit for purpose when the old one wasn't any better and no one seems to be putting forward a credible alternative.

 

alternative: scrap the assessment, make sure scum like ATOS are allowed no where near vulnerable adults in future.

 

Accept that there are a small minority of fraudsters, whether there are assessments or not, but be reasurred by the fact that hundreds of genuinely disabled vulnerable adults will no longer be committing suicide.

 

Then, when the system currently responsible for the deaths of hundreds of genuinely disabled vulnerable adults is dismantled and they are safe from the threat of homelessness/starvation, then, work on creating a fair assessment system.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2016 at 15:24 ----------

 

[/b]

 

It's a tick box exercise and some humans simply don't fit into boxes.

 

As a diagnosed autistic, I can confirm that this is so, very, very true.

 

I think if you could somehow make the general public and medical professionals and politicans understand only one thing- it would be that "some humans simply don't fit into boxes".

 

If we all understood that, ATOS 'assessments' and their like, would simply not be tolerated.

[I1L2T3 10]

I've already pointed out it's faults; people are wrongly being classed as fit for work. If you want to politicise it, I could say that there is no surprise that the system has issues considering it was brought in by Labour in 2008.

 

It is a political issue. The rhetoric from the Tories and the DWP confirm that.

 

Claimants of every type of benefit (except pensioners really) have been classed as spongers. Even the disabled. How easy it's been for average IQ Tory supporting meatheads to slip into attacking the disabled! It's a national disgrace really.

 

This even manifests in the language the DWP uses. Nobody has really mentioned the threatening and hectoring tone of the letters that get sent out to vulnerable people.

[GLASGOWOODS 10]

alternative: scrap the assessment, make sure scum like ATOS are allowed no where near vulnerable adults in future.

 

Accept that there are a small minority of fraudsters, whether there are assessments or not, but be reasurred by the fact that hundreds of genuinely disabled vulnerable adults will no longer be committing suicide.

 

Then, when the system currently responsible for the deaths of hundreds of genuinely disabled vulnerable adults is dismantled and they are safe from the threat of homelessness/starvation, then, work on creating a fair assessment system.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2016 at 15:24 ----------

 

 

 

 

As a diagnosed autistic, I can confirm that this is so, very, very true.

 

I think if you could somehow make the general public and medical professionals and politicans understand only one thing- it would be that "some humans simply don't fit into boxes".

 

If we all understood that, ATOS 'assessments' and their like, would simply not be tolerated.

 

So what system would you prefer to assess people on benefits?