More than 2,500 benefit claimants die after being found fit for work in just two years

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

And lo! The prophecies made when the tyrant bastards came to power again are coming true. The uncharitable amongst the right in this country might assume that those of us opposing austerity are rubbing our hands with glee about this headline, assuming that like them, we on the left are motivated by oneupmanship, that we see this as a game. Fortunately for us, we know that our concerns are what they are, because we care about our fellow human beings, and know what is good for them, and what is not...

a reply to: woodwardjnr

...furthermore, I just want to say woodwardjnr, that the image you posted and the facts it represents are absolutely crucial to my attitude toward austerity in this country, and indeed to my attitude toward many things which have bearing on the economic and sociological situation in this United Kingdom. While the fraud committed by a tiny minority of claimants, with small means, is treated as being worse than the fraud committed by powerful people, with vast financial clout, despite being smaller in actual economic impact by a VAST amount, there will be an enormous problem in our country.

It MUST be dealt with.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I agree with your sentiment. One thing that people that view this thread should remember is this: Not all disabilities can be seen by looking at a person. If you look at a person, and you think they look healthy-that doesn't always mean that they are. I've known healthy looking people that have seizures that almost kill them, and scare the heck out of any witnesses. I have seen people almost die that way from almost choking on blood from biting their tongue in a seizure, flailing on their back. These people look perfectly healthy in all other respects, but they are truly disabled in a way that threatens their lives.

It's sad to see that this agency was able to decide the people were fit to work, only to have their lives taken when the system forced them to go. I will give all of those people that tried credit for trying so hard! They literally gave their lives because a bureaucracy got to decide their fate. Brave people, I hope it saves the lives of others that have "invisible disabilities".

a reply to: TrueBrit

But decisions made in government are based on budgets/resources and possible outcomes, not emotions.
Many people die every day because of a purely budgetary related decisions.
X amount of money will purchase whatever treatment to save a certain amount of lives each year while others will die on a waiting list. Change the money variable and you change the amount of folk who live.
Even down to a local level, only 1 child every so many years gets killed at a busy road so the council don't pay for a new zebra crossing.
It's all budgets and mortality rates at source, mostly due to resource competition between departmental budgets.

But make no mistake, the choices taken by government of any flavour are always based on the available pot of resources and consideration of the percentage of people who will potentially die or live, depending on the decision made.

a reply to: grainofsand

That, with respect, is not entirely correct is it?

If that was the case, then the government would not permit 30 billion pounds of fraud on the part of the powerful, while crapping on every benefit claimant over the actions of a small minority.

The government looses 30 billion of our money in tax fraud, and for some reason, this is not considered a big deal? Not worth sinking massive resources to correct?

How many lives could be saved with those thirty billion? How many lives could be improved, how many bought out of poverty, how much infrastructure could be renovated or put in place? If things were exactly as you say, then this imbalance would never have existed.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Of course the greasy politicians are playing their own agenda but the senior civil servants who have to implement and steer things have limited control over that, although some will be taking into consideration estimated losses of investment if 'the rich' are cracked down on.
Easy to move things to a cheaper part of the world these days.
I like your caring sentiment but the UK acting altruistically and cracking down on 'business' unilaterally would just result in loss of business.
Unless all countries change in the same way as you advocate then the UK acting alone would result in more of us being poor.

I find it as distasteful a anyone else, but your appeals to perfectly reasonable emotions are not gonna change anything while citizens lives continue to be considered as budget choices and possible outcomes.
That's just standard government administration.

a reply to: grainofsand

Simply accounts on a ledger.

Which, consequently, is the basis for the term and notion of "human resource". Some resources...are fully depreciated.

a reply to: grainofsand

Even if looked at in a dry manner, going after that thirty billion is a higher priority than going after one point five billion.

If all I was capable of, was a dry calculation, the result would be the same. You hit the worst offenders first, and the least of them last, because that is how the hierarchy of wrongdoing works logically.

That this happens to be in line with my emotional reasoning is merely a happy accident.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

Simply accounts on a ledger.

Which, consequently, is the basis for the term and notion of "human resource". Some resources...are fully depreciated.

Why do people demand the Government take care of them every which way and then get upset when people become numbers based on only the healthiness of the overall mass.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's exactly how it is whichever flavour of government we have.
I worked under left and right in senior civil service and decisions were always based on budget/how many might suffer. Granted, left leaning government chose less suffer than right leaning parties but ultimately it is always a question of how many folk will suffer because 'no suffering' is not an option...unless there are unlimited resources of course.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The "1%" individuals and corporations bring more money/investment/growth in than folk on ESA.
I absolutely understand why governments take that into consideration.
It is distasteful, but I understand it.

a reply to: grainofsand

That is factually inaccurate.

The one percent are not producers. They are figure workers. Administrators. Their "efforts" are minimal, and their so called contributions are negligible. They do not achieve profits. Their whole companies do, but those companies are not made up of tiny numbers of people, and instead involve the combined strength of thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of individuals, all gears in a machine without which the whole would be inoperable.

The reality is that these people are NOT the ones making money for companies. Those straining to adhere to company policy while their departments are under staffed and over worked, are the ones performing above and beyond the call of their duty. Those struggling to pay bills and none the less returning to their poorly paid labours every day despite it doing them very little good in the long run, are the ones making a contribution to that profit margin. The fellows at the top are not talented, not skilled, and many of them are not even very good at their jobs. A fair percentage get where they get, because they are psychopathic and ruthless and allow nothing to stand between them and a vastly over inflated pay packet, including their own inadequacies.

THAT is the truth of it.

Those taking the most out, cannot, by definition, be those putting the most in. The two positions are mutually exclusive.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I disagree. The 'one percent' of individuals make the decisions over where the money is invested.
It becomes de facto government by default.
You want to change the world then change how we perceive resources and allocate them.
As I said, I like your sentiment but it is far removed from the reality of government administration.
Moaning about it on ATS ain't gonna change that anytime soon though unfortunately.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: TrueBrit


Moaning about it on ATS ain't gonna change that anytime soon though unfortunately.

Au contrare.... most major social paradigm shifts in history were first birthed by like-minded individuals meeting to discuss "issues" with the status quo.




Disclaimer: Of course people aren't like that anymore Mr NSA GCHQ. No revolutionaries here old chap.

propaganda!
my god it works far to well.
Thoes people should not work.
They can not work.
I thought we had a lot of unemployed?
and the government is Making people employ the sick?

You are Slaves as it is.
one day soon the robots will start taking ALL the jobs.
as long as its not your job you will be ok with it.
untill its to late.

they YOU will be one of the scroungers!
and then the government will Control You.

as you are a Burden and parasite.
maybe they will send you to the gass chambers,

My sister died at 30 and was declared fit for work the week before she died.

I've crohns and althrough I see myself as disabled the government see me as fit for work also.

As someone struggling to get on SSI in the U.S., things like this always sadden and terrify me.

I know people don't like the idea of supporting what they see as lay abouts and moochers, but there are people in this world who need help to get by. Often just to survive. Right now I'm fine because I'm with family. But they won't always be around. Then there are friends. But what then?

That people actually die as a result of things like this hurts my head and my heart.

Peace.

a reply to: tadaman

Tadaman, I agree with most of what you are saying. While some cheat, most do not. A few years back, the governor of Florida complained of the cheaters and the money (tax payer dollars). The state then instituted drug testing for all recipients. I think four people were found to be on drugs out of thousands. (a guess, but it was very small)

Why do I bring this up? The spouse of the the governor was the owner of the drug testing company. Rather than help people who need it, more money for the leaders.

a reply to: gortex

IDS is doing the job cameron set him to do, cameron with his wealthy background doesn't even relate to people having to take grotty jobs for which they are unsuited or indeed unfit. All cameron cares about is where his money is invested and getting a good return on it by making laws to suit the corporations whose shares he owns.

I am glad the petition was forced out into the open. This is one system that seems to be working for the people.

originally posted by: michaelmcclen
My sister died at 30 and was declared fit for work the week before she died.

I've crohns and althrough I see myself as disabled the government see me as fit for work also.

How did she die?

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

What percentage of the total number is that? What percent of the ones found not fit died?