So we are all SCROUNGERS now

[debt4get]

i agree antone..but these people do get caught..i already had to jump through hoops to get my dla...now the goalposts are being moved and i am going to have to do it every 3 years....this is simply another blow to the disabled....they are going to get as many people as possible off this benefit..whether you are ill or not it is not going to make a damn difference..we are an easy target..we dont or cant move fast...

[debt4get]

thank you for that book...it is amazing how the press puts a story together like that yet actually fails to get at the truth...nicely researched m8..hope you emailed the paper and put them right...but of course they wouldnt print it anyway tory propoganda...

[antone]

... and who for all WE know, could have been claiming under the 26 week rule (for terminal short term prognosis, for those who wonder), because he had leukemia, and was in remission for a short time which is when he got "caught".

 

Or the family of scroungers in the Mail a few weeks ago, where they has umpteen kids, and dad gave up work because "they were better off on benefits", and one of the kids was getting DLA "because of a skin complaint"... What made me twitch was the mention of the car, because Mota means you're getting high rate mobility and you wouldn't get that for a rash, let me tell you... So I decided to look into it a bit further and it turned out the "skin complaint" is a bit more than that, it is a condition where the skin literally sloughs off the whole body (including of course the feet), leaving the poor kid flayed alive . So now, instead of scrounger dad and cheating parents claiming falsely, what we have is 2 parents sharing the care round the clock of a child who needs 24/7 care, and claiming, quite rightly, the benefits they qualify for. Not quite the same thing, is it...

 

Well, quite. But I'm sure the Mail published a retraction and apology, of course. I mean, they always do, don't they?

[Bookworm]

Oh no, they're smarter than that... They did mention the child's condition, one of those complicated names, and of course it is technically a "skin complaint", so they hadn't actually lied, just artfully edited and let their readers reach their own conclusions. I'll see if I can find the article.

 

Sorry, I am as bad as them, it says "severe skin disorder", my bad.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265508/Peter-Davey-gets-42-000-benefits-year-drives-Mercedes.html

Edited June 23, 2010 by Bookworm
link

[loan_ranger]

Bookworm Re: So we are all SCROUNGERS now

Oh no, they're smarter than that... They did mention the child's condition, one of those complicated names, and of course it is technically a "skin complaint", so they hadn't actually lied, just artfully edited and let their readers reach their own conclusions. I'll see if I can find the article.

Agreed, I 'spose this is gonna go down like a lead balloon too, I don't care!

I'm going to make a complaint to the PCC (Press Complaints Commission) and I suggest everyone should do the same about that scurrilous article likening the sick and disabled to malingerers. E.g. words and phrases such as:

 

"Incapacity benefit will be axed within four years under plans to crack down on the workshy."

 

"Official figures suggest that only one in six adults claiming incapacity benefit may be entitled to do so." (Unsubstantiated, unaccredited and untrue!)

 

"The handouts cost around £12.5billion a year." (Handouts! So what were we paying our N.I. for?)

 

The article in the U.K. edition of "Der Sturmer" (aka Daily Mail) is full of quotes from Chris ("ailing") Grayling M.P., he's a fine one to talk about "the handouts culture" as evidenced by his expenses claims:-x.

Top Tory claims £100,000 for flat he is 'rarely seen in' - mirror.co.uk

 

The government is busy creating a narrative vilifying the sick and disabled in order to prune their benefits whilst avoiding fair public scrutiny of this unscrupulous attack on those least able to defend themselves.

 

Regards, Paul.

 

 

Read more: Chris Grayling announces the end of incapacity benefit in four years | Mail Online

 

Yes I know this complaint to the PCC won't have any noticeable effect and even if my complaint is upheld, I wouldn't expect the "Mail" to do more than print their apology and retraction hidden away in a discreet tiny space on page x-teen. Je m'en fut de votre's avis!

 

These are what I consider were the breaches of the Code of Practice

 

1. Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

 

12. Discrimination

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

 

Here's my reply email which I sent to the PCC today:

22 June, 09:57

Dear Mr Yip,

 

thank you for your enquiry in reference to my complaint about, what in my opinion is, the Mail On-line's scurrilous article likening the sick and disabled to malingerers.

 

The article stated,

"Official figures suggest that only one in six adults claiming incapacity benefit may be entitled to do so."

 

I made the comment as follows:

"(Unsubstantiated, unaccredited and untrue! The CAB reports that the new WCA medical test is wrongly classifying tens of thousands of people as fit for work, the Daily Mail prejudicially fails to provide balance)".

 

You have asked me if I can provide evidence to show that the "claim" is inaccurate, I may not have a Ph.D. but even I can see the impossibility of finding evidence disproving conjecture and outright lies, and neither should I need to because there are no such "official figures" (as the 'Mail' claims) in existence, surely it is for the Mail to tell us exactly what they meant by "official figures", neither the DWP nor Jobcentre Plus have conducted research providing any figures in relation to I.B. claimants. There is no empirical evidence to support the claims made by the "Mail", I can say this because the process of moving people from I.B. to ESA hasn't yet begun, under the previous government it was to be trialled in the pathfinder areas from October and rolled out nationally from February 2011, though Chris Grayling has now said this will happen from April 2011.

 

The only statistics which have been forthcoming are those for the harsher ESA "Work Capability Assessment" (WCA) which is replacing the I.B. "Personal Capability Assessment" (PCA). The statistics have been routinely misused by Government Ministers both Tory and Labour, as well as Lord Freud, to create a "narrative" portraying the ill and disabled as being mostly benefits cheats, this "narrative" has been repeated by the press and broadcast media and exploited in order to sensationalise, distort and amplify purely for "media values".

Even when allowing for the "distortion" of statistics by the DWP, (i.e. by not including the remaining 45 per cent who either left ESA before the completion of the assessment or their assessment is still in progress* see Ref.) I still fail to see how the "Mail" has arrived at the claim that (16.66%) "only 1 out of 6 adults claiming incapacity benefit may be entitled to do so" - this is tantamount to suggesting that 83.33% are playing the system.

*(Ref: Motion to Approve: 1 Mar 2010: House of Lords debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)

Hansard Source 1 Mar 2010 : Column 1276 Lord McKenzie of Luton 8:30 pm.

Lords Hansard text for 1 Mar 201001 Mar 2010 (pt 0013)

(Quote:-) On 19 January, there was an official publication of WCA national statistics. Figures showed that, for all ESA claims in the quarter from March 2009 to the end of May 2009, 38 per cent were assessed as fit for work, 5 per cent as suitable for the support group and 12 per cent as suitable for the work-related activity group. The remaining 45 per cent either left ESA before the completion of the assessment or their assessment is still in progress. (Closed Quote)).

 

I can see where the "Mail" may have concocted their figure from, they've added the 5 per cent found as suitable for the support group and 12 per cent found as suitable for the work-related activity group, but instead of subtracting 17% from the 55% who've actually had the WCA, the "Mail" deliberately misleads by subtracting 17 from 100%. So in fact, although only 38% were assessed as fit for work, the "Mail" has bolstered it's figure by adding to their numbers the remaining 45 per cent who either left ESA before the completion of the assessment or their assessment is still in progress. Many of these 45% will have been JSA claimants forced by regulations to claim ESA after 2 weeks "sick", who have subsequently become well enough (before their WCA was due) to return to JSA of their own accord.

 

Even by ignoring the 38% who stop claiming ESA before their WCA and the 7% still waiting in the system, "of those who have been assessed, nine per cent were allocated to the support group, 22 per cent to the work-related group and 69 per cent were refused ESA because they were found fit for work." (From pages 7 - 8 of CAB report "Not Working - March 2010") I still would like to hear how 69% becomes 83.33% in the "Daily Mail".

1 in 4 out of the 69% being assessed fit "for work" will reach the Tribunal where 40% of ESA refusal cases are being overturned in favour of the claimant (6.9%), therefore only 62.1% are finally being found fit for work, over 20% lower than claimed by the "Mail", I say - "official figures" my foot!

If I chose to manipulate the figures "Daily Mail" style, it would be just as equally true to say that only 31.1% (38% less 6.9% after Tribunal decisions) are being found fit for work.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Paul Nurse.

 

On 21/06/2010 14:47, Simon Yip wrote: Dear Mr Nurse

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I note that you have stated that the “official figures” to which the newspaper has referred (stating that only one in six of those claiming incapacity benefit may be entitled to do so) are incorrect.

 

Are you able to provide any evidence to the Commission to show that this claim is inaccurate, before we can look to move forward?

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Simon Yip

Administrator

 

Press Complaints Commission

Halton House

20/23 Holborn

London EC1N 2JD

 

Tel: 020 7831 0022

Website: www.pcc.org.uk

 

 

The PCC is an independent self-regulatory body which deals with complaints about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines (and their websites). We keep industry standards high by training journalists and editors, and work pro-actively behind the scenes to prevent harassment and media intrusion. We can also provide pre-publication advice to journalists and the public.

 

 

Email Disclaimer

The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended for the named addressee only. It contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately or the system manager (pcc@pcc.org.uk) and then delete it from your system. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities.

 

Press Complaints Commission, Halton House, 20-23 Holborn, London EC1N 2JD

Edited June 23, 2010 by loan_ranger

[Simon7685]

Actually Bookworm the football referee I remarked on in my earlier post was a guy who had been on DLA for a number of years and was filmed whilst refereeing a football match. When he was called in about it he turned up on crutches being supported because he couldn't walk. I think that defines a benefit cheat?

 

I am not having a go at people either disabled or on benefits, I am one of those disabled people on benefits. However you can say that there are thousands of benefit cheats, which includes a lot of the youth of today who think the world owes them a living and are quite prepared to live off benefits without even seeking work. How can I say that??? Quite simple really, you see it everyday in the towns and in the streets, you can even hear them discussing it outside schools, I hear it everyday.

 

Previously I was in the licensed trade, on a daily basis every single pub we ran, had it's regular daily customers who came in all day every day bragging about how they only ever worked on the side to top up their benefits to spend in the pub. Another group would get you what you wanted when you wanted, how? By stealing it to then sell on, whilst all the time claiming benefits. We had one pub where one guy used to come in bragging about how he screwed the system for his disability benefits because he couldn't walk, although he could go fishing and playing golf during the day and play snooker on a night in the pub!

 

All these people are benefit cheats.

 

Prior to the licensed trade, I was a civil servant in the Benefits Agency and I can assure you that in a small town like ours the fraud department were the busiest section in our local office. There are thousands of benefit cheats in this country and it is partly down to that reason that the welfare system is buckling and costing so much every year, which has a knock on effect on why any government wants to force people off benefits by hook or by crook.

 

No system is ever going to stop this, no matter who is in power, each and every government wants to tackle it, says they are going to and then abjectly fails because the problem is so widespread they can't actually deal with it but that doesn't mean that you can deny it exists. Sadly this means that genuine benefit claimants get put through the wringer (I know from experience) and in a lot of cases denied what they are entitled to.

[RaeUK]

Well, I'm afraid I'm sitting on the [un]comfy fence! I agree wholeheartedly that those who are cheating the system must be weeded out as they give the genuinely ill a bad name. That said, it is so difficult to think of a way of doing this that would not adversley affect the genuine. I don't like the status quo but neither do I like the way we are going...

Humph!

Rae

[dragonkeeper]

i was going to post but i got to heavy into it and deceided not to which is quite ironic.

I did start my post with the word ironic

 

 

 

dk

[sam247]

I,ve just been looking at the DWP official figures concerning DLA:

 

2005,Fraud accounted for:£40million,Official error accounted for:£60million,

The figures for Underpayment are:£200million

 

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/dlafraudjuly05.pdf

 

I,ve read this governments book over 20 years ago,same script,but did anyone expect anything different?

I would feel sick now if i had of voted for the principlined libdems

[dragonkeeper]

I,ve just been looking at the DWP official figures concerning DLA:

 

2005,Fraud accounted for:£40million,Official error accounted for:£60million,

The figures for Underpayment are:£200million

 

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/dlafraudjuly05.pdf

 

I,ve read this governments book over 20 years ago,same script,but did anyone expect anything different?

 

 

and that is only covers one benefit of many that are claimed

 

 

 

dk

[mick094m]

The main thing that needs to be determined in my opinion is what is classed as being disabled,I along with everyone else on this forum knows the meaning of being disabled,but I am at a loss to understand how the following is classed as disabled,I refer to having a "drug" problem,a "drink" problem,there are residential properties in this residential area that that the landlords "specialise" in housing these in what is termed HMO's,in other words cram as many into the property as you can get paid by theDWP for doing so.These properties in residential areas are an easy way for the owners and landlords to in my opinion "scrounge" at the system,rather than "let" to families or more deserving people,they prefer to house "benefit claimants",reason being,they don't have to collect the rent it is done for them.It is these landlords that are "[causing problems]" the system and they should be investigated.

Referring to the comments I made previously about these so-called "vulnerable " people with drink and drug problems,how it benefits them putting them into a residential area that already has a known drink and drug problem is beyond my comprehension,unless it is making life easier for them to require these substances they rely" on,as for disabled it does not stop them going out between 6.60am and 7.00am of a morning to the local off-licence,or going to the local drug drops,are we the so-called genuine disabled to be put in the same class as these,in my service days there was no drug problems but anyone with a drink problem it was classed as self inflicted injury ,and it was classed as a chargable offence,but that does not seem to be the case with these.Not only that but they get the priority treatment by the requirement of continous visits of ambulances and paramedics at the expence of the rest of us who have to wait for the attention ,they don't wait it is probably "red flagged" for immediate responce.

These in my opinion are the ones that should be seen to and it don't need any medicals to do so ,as they are already known to the DWP. Also if the truth was known they have never worked and therefor contributed to the system in any form of tax or nationla insurance so why should they be entitled to these payouts,I may add that they must be on the highest DLA and they all have the latest mobile phones a must for anyone with a drink/drug problem.Vulnerable MY A**E.

[Bookworm]

That's again too generalised though, each case is different.

 

Example: What of kids born addicted to drugs because mum was an addict?

 

Someone suffers a traumatic event (whatever that may be, the threshold of tolerance is different for everyone) and turns to drink (or drugs for that matter).

 

These are the 2 that come to the top of my head.

 

Of course, you are quite right in the herding of these people in the buildings you mention, that IMO is a cop-out, but now we're talking of the lack of care, not the benefit scroungers.

 

As for pple who have never worked, paid NI etc..., my son is now 13, was born autistic, grows up autistic, will die autistic. The way things are going, it is highly unlikely he will ever be able to hold a job or contribute NI. Would you deny him assistance? What of the thousands of children born every day with a disability that will hamper them all their lives?

 

People should be careful of generalisations, that's how trouble like the one starting this thread start.

[mick094m]

Book worm forget I ever put that post up waste of time,admittedly your son is one of the genuine cases never ever referred to him or people like him I am refering to......well forget it withdrawing from the thread ....admin could you please remove my thread withdrawing from the whole forum

[Bookworm]

Actually Bookworm the football referee I remarked on in my earlier post was a guy who had been on DLA for a number of years and was filmed whilst refereeing a football match. When he was called in about it he turned up on crutches being supported because he couldn't walk. I think that defines a benefit cheat?

I had qualified my post as a "may", meaning it was a hypothetical, Simon. I have not said that there are no benefit cheats, and this one obviously was, what I am trying to say is that it it isn't all that clear cut. On a good day, the DWP could say about me: We filmed her getting to her car, going to the gym, then the swimming-pool, and we filmed her x amount of times randomly, so she's obviously fine.

 

What would be missing would be ALL the other days, of which there are many more than good ones . The days where I can't even get out of bed. The days where my house is crumbling in dirt around me, but I can't do a thing about it. The days where I have to cancel appointments because getting out of the house is just too painful. The showers which now take me in average 45 mns just to get in, wash and get out. The routine I have to carry out to be able to go to the gym (because I am supposed to try and stay mobile! Ah!), which entails any 1 type of 3 different lumbar corsets, painkillers graded from "knock me out" to "kill a horse" dosages, anti-inflammatories, muscle relaxants etc... the number of times where I got back from the gym and was then near paralysed for 2 weeks because I had just done one move too many. The fact I can't lift my feather-light 2 yr old grandson. It's all these things which qualify me for DLA HRM, you see, but the DWP doesn't see what my daily and nightly life is like, they would film a few chosen snippets, seen only outside (and therefore by definition a better day than the ones where I am a prisoner in my home) and would build a case based on those biased facts.

 

Previously I was in the licensed trade, on a daily basis every single pub we ran, had it's regular daily customers who came in all day every day bragging about how they only ever worked on the side to top up their benefits to spend in the pub. Another group would get you what you wanted when you wanted, how? By stealing it to then sell on, whilst all the time claiming benefits. We had one pub where one guy used to come in bragging about how he screwed the system for his disability benefits because he couldn't walk, although he could go fishing and playing golf during the day and play snooker on a night in the pub!

well, you've got to admit that your vision would be skewered surely? By definition, someone who spends all his time in the pub is hardly going to be an upstanding member of the community, so the pub population can't be a representative sample, surely? While you're behind the bar, you are not going to see all the others who are at work all day long, the honest people and the genuine?

 

There are thousands of benefit cheats in this country and it is partly down to that reason that the welfare system is buckling and costing so much every year, which has a knock on effect on why any government wants to force people off benefits by hook or by crook.

there most probably are, yes. In a population of 50+ million, anything else would be surprising. :-? But the figures someone else posted higher up i think clearly indicate that they don't even make a dent in the total compared to people who do not get what they should or get denied it, and do not justify the sledgehammer method currently being touted. This government is intent on cutting down the amount of benefits paid, full stop and you can bet your asp that a lot of the innocent will get chewed up and spat out in the process. I will go further: The real benefit cheats KNOW how to play the system so well that they will STILL be able to claim benefits, whilst those who will suffer the most will be as usual those who don't know how to argue the best, by definition the most vulnerable. Think about it. Who's most likely to pass an ATOS test? Someone who knows exactly which box need to be ticked to qualify or someone of diminished mental capacity?

 

No system is ever going to stop this, no matter who is in power, each and every government wants to tackle it, says they are going to and then abjectly fails because the problem is so widespread they can't actually deal with it but that doesn't mean that you can deny it exists. Sadly this means that genuine benefit claimants get put through the wringer (I know from experience) and in a lot of cases denied what they are entitled to.

Noone is denying it. But until everyone of the entitled gets what they should, no government has the right to harass those who already have in the hope of catching the odd cheat. That is completely and quite simply wrong.

 

I would have thought that precisely because you went through the wringer, you of all people would understand that. You were put through all this, not because of the benefit cheats, but because of a govt intent on saving money and denying you your rights wherever possible, and using the benefit cheats as a convenient scapegoat to make it sound acceptable to pick on the vulnerable in such a fashion. "It's for your own good" springs to mind.

[Bookworm]

Book worm forget I ever put that post up waste of time,admittedly your son is one of the genuine cases never ever referred to him or people like him I am refering to......well forget it withdrawing from the thread ....admin could you please remove my thread withdrawing from the whole forum

there's no need for that!!!

 

Your post was just the perfect illustration of what I meant, that's all. You are far from being the only one, you see. In fact, if you WERE the only one, it would be far less worrying.

 

But that's my point about propaganda: "they" start by putting together a sentence like "benefit" and "scrounger" in the same breath, and before long, more and more people start repeating it and believing it without actually thinking about what it implies. When it comes to a genuine claimant himself having been caught by the system and still defending it as the "others" fault, then you know how successful that propaganda has been...

 

As far as I am concerned, always start with: the government or the media are telling me something as a fact, what's in it for them?... and work backwards from there. ;-)

[debt4get]

i agree bookworm and am sorry mick you felt that way..please stay..the forum is to help and educate everyone..people do get taken in by the propoganda perpetuated by the media..that if we are on benefit then somehow we must be a scrounger..i would much rather be back in my classroom now today than sat here typing to this forum...back alas this cannot be so...however, we have to try to stop this insidious attack onto the sick and vulnerable under the heading of scrounger...we should all remember..therefore by the grace of god go i..disability could strike anyone anytime...heart attack.. stroke..the list goes on...maybe even an accident at home or work...

[loan_ranger]

Well said Bookworm, your posts #64 & #65 hit the nail on the head. The media are spreading government propaganda blinding people from seeing the State's insidious hidden agenda of cutting welfare spending regardless of how many genuine claimants get hurt in the process using the Atos scatter-gun whereby the genuine ill and disabled are being treated as collateral damage. All their talk of the "carrot" (i.e. "greater support for those who really need it") isn't happening but is a complete red herring which, as every service user knows is used to justify the sticks (i.e. extra sanctions and conditionality), but the public who've no experience of Atos+DWP still believe in the fishy myth.

 

For the benefit of those who still can't see the "big picture", I would like to remind them that the current thinking about welfare reform had, and still has, David Freud's market serving neo-liberalism at its core.

 

Kevin Hind MP tells us how Lord Freud thinks -

In 2006 the Government commissioned David Freud, a former investment banker (!) to produce a report on overhauling the entire benefits system. His proposals for disabled people were draconian. I challenged him about this at Labour Party Conference in 2007, but he insisted that even the most disabled people might be expected to look for work (and you can quote me on this) ‘even quadriplegics are capable of working’.

Lord Freud speaking recently - he certainly hasn’t changed his views

Edited June 25, 2010 by loan_ranger
changed link to a more direct one

[debt4get]

i can personally see the suicide count climbing dramatically in the years ahead if this excuse for a government gets its way...justifying disabled peoples money every 3 years is going to play havoc..and they know this..but hey for everyone that they get off the benefit by any means possible is another statistic on their list and another 'saving'...i live in an area of high unemployment anyway and chances of finding a job here is about non existent...most jobs in the so-called job centre are merely agency work..either short term contract low paid etc or they dont even exist and when you ring are told come in sign up and we will see if we can get you anything...as that job has gone....

i have noticed another tack now being employed against the sick if you are over 60 they send you for a board..tell you you are fit for work and stop you esa benefit..then they put you on pension credit instead...its just another way of massaging the figures..you dont appear on the unemployment register and you no longer appear on the sick figures..job done

[loan_ranger]

The latest con-lib plan to reduce peoples housing benefit by 10% after 12 months on the dole (which is where countless genuinely ill and disabled people are increasingly finding themselves) will increase homelessness and destitution, areas of high unemployment will be worst hit. I'll be sitting beneath the multi-storey car park with a clip board doing a body count.

Edited June 25, 2010 by loan_ranger

[mick094m]

Final comment for debt4 you and bookworm,I am in no way refering to anything in the media what I am refering to is what I am witnessing in the road that I live in day in and day out,I don't take any notice of the media and finally it is ok for the polititians to "generalise" as they are doing with the disabled that was my main point we are all tarred with the same brush BYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE have fun

[zazen.warrior]

Post removed.

Edited July 29, 2010 by zazen.warrior

[RaeUK]

It is a bit of a dodgy looking pic that's for sure!

Best wishes

Rae

[Bookworm]

Cameron has also disclosed that he will remain prime minister and will not hand over the reins to his deputy, Nick Clegg, in the way that Labour had a formal handover of power every summer.

Yeah, because he's not sure he'd be allowed to have it back on his return!

[ee-bee]

David Cameron could speak at Liberal Democrat conference as coalition cosies up | Politics | The Guardian

 

Is it just me or does Cameron put anyone else in mind of Hitler in the photograph o

n this article?[/QUOT

 

yeah,he does look similar,scary,!!

[ee-bee]

i have to say,when cameron and cleg are together neither of them look very comfortable