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

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

It is totally meaningless without context and you're just digging up some rather dubious articles to try and support your position.

What were the causes of death? What proportion of people judged fit to work died within "weeks"? Would they have died anyway?

But that's the point isn't it?

Were they so Ill they would have died anyway, yet they were found fit for work. How does that work?

You're the one posting the statistics as some sort of proof of the evil Government and I was the one asking the question, so perhaps you could do the legwork?

And people die all the time while in work - in fact, in the past month we have had 2 people die at my work and one of them would have been described as a very healthy chap right up until he keeled over clutching his chest.

fullfact.org...

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Nice find - I am now expecting another thread from the OP about how thousands of pensioners die after their pensions have been halted.

The article the OP links to is a classic example of tabloid journalism - a headline guaranteed to make waves, with "statistics" to back it up but with little actual investigation into what it is actually representing. Quite ironic really, consider this post in a thread titled Propoganda and/or fake news - Does it work?

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Just look at the Rothschilds to see it works, but not all the time. It's the ultimate gamble isn't it?

Also we all believe what we are told by the various news sources, well maybe not all, but enough to keep the money people where they are, in control.

a reply to: stumason the truth is boring. The medias sensational approach probably does more damage to vulnerable people than the assessment process

a reply to: stumason I think we are all guilty of falling for some media sensationalism from time to time. Especially if we have emotionally invested in an issue. I know I'm certainly guilty

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Oh yeah, definitely. Before I realised there was such a thing as media bias (I was around 16-17), the Daily Mail used to make me so angry with it's "stories" as I assumed they must be true, they were in the paper!

Nowadays, I will look at a headline and use that as a starting off point for my own leg work, always aware of the various outlets bias, from the Daily Mail hating on everything and anything through to the Mirror with it's thinly veiled socialist slant. There has been many an occasion I've seen a headline, thought "Oooh, that would be a good thread" only to find after my own research on the claims that, actually, they've totally misrepresented it and it is nothing like it is being portrayed.

I think the elephant in the room is the number of false ESA claimants. If so many people with nothing wrong with them stopped trying to claim a benefit aimed at the sick, there would be no need for the level of scrutiny applied at the assessments. Too many people who just have # lives go to their GP and get signed off with "depression". They don't have depression, they just have a rubbish life and it makes them feel bad. The depression label gives them a clinical diagnosis and they use it to apply for ESA. They are fully capable of going to work but just can't get a job or don't want to. There are other benefits in place for those in unemployment that are more suitable for them, but don't pay out as much.

These people make it more difficult to identify those who are truely unfit for work, meaning many at risk slip through the net while trying to weed out the chancers who are happy to take money meant for the truely sick.

a reply to: PaddyInf fraud in the benefits system is not as big as some would have you believe. It's not easy to just get ESA and much more difficult to get the personal independent allowance. I get ESA because I'm on chemotherapy right now and quite disabled after a stroke, so not really in a position to work right now. I probably won't get PIP or if I do it will be the low rate. You have to be pretty disabled and sick to get PIP. Of course like every system it will be abused, but there are also many who do not claim because of the shame attached so there is millions in unclaimed benefits that don't get mentioned. I can't imagine too many people want to be disabled or living with serious illness. I'm 36 and have to live with my parents and have had use a lot of my ESA on care and fitting the house with a stair lift and a wet room. I'm not living the life of Riley by any stretch.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

You are the type of person the benefits system is aimed at. You are clearly suffering from a condition that makes you unfit for work. My point is there are other benefits for people who ARE fit for work but because ESA pays more they try to claim this.

Many people point blank lie in the assessments. They go onto the sites that tell them how to pass and just repeat what they say.

My other half does these assessments. She tells me that if you look back through previous reports you can see the trends changing in what claimants report as the assessment criteria changes. At one time suicidal thoughts were not taken into account and no one ever mentioned self harm during examinations. Since they started being considered every one who comes into the assessments is now suicidal because they look st sites which tells them it is increases the chance of getting the benefit. If everyone is telling you that they are going to kill themselves whether it is true or not, how do you identify the ones truely at risk?

Here is a list of names and causes of death of some of the people who are probably in those figures mentioned.

Going through the list. The 2 people i know who died whilst sanctioned and or found fit for work (one suicide, one multiple organ failure) aint on it..

Dead People found fit for work

Most are suicides. Remember people, it could be you or a family member who goes through this.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Ahh, a list of a couple of dozen random names on Facebook, with no links to any kind of verification or source. We just have to take your word for it, I suppose Solo? It's not as if you've been caught talking bollocks before, is it?

I know people with depression and they work - in fact, it's the going to work that helps them through the day.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
According to this article 2,380 people died within six weeks of being found 'fit for work'.

www.independent.co.uk...

Actually, it says that and then does nothing to actually back up its claim. It uses the same two year period and then somehow surmises that all of those who died did so within 'weeks'. It even states in the URL that you provided that over 4,000 people died and then talks about under 3,000 - all over a two year period - do you read before providing the link?

Says the resident medical expert on ATS.

Why am I a medical expert? Being able to read and draw a balanced conclusion maybe, but I'm sure you will learn to do that at some point.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Ahh, a list of a couple of dozen random names on Facebook, with no links to any kind of verification or source. We just have to take your word for it, I suppose Solo? It's not as if you've been caught talking bollocks before, is it?

I know people with depression and they work - in fact, it's the going to work that helps them through the day.

You didn't even look. if you had checked the first 2 names you could have found this..
Terry McGarvey

Elaine Lowe

So much for you being Mr Fact checker...you never even tried before you accused me of posting a random list of names from Facebook...

Anything else you require from me for you to believe these people are not just someones imagination, Doctor who pronounced them dead reports,? Death Certificate perhaps...?

Now, should i go through everyone of those names on the list or are you happy with the 2 listed above...?

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: hammanderr

I'm all for people working, earning a decent wage and providing for themselves and their family. Only some can't you see simply because they are too ill to work, unfortunately that is the reality.

I feel that we have a duty to support the vulnerable, not treat them in a way where they are looked upon as a burden, the dregs of society.

If you can work, then you should, if you can't then if we can support business and some privileged family, then the least we can do is provide a safety net for those that can't.

I appreciate not everyone feels this way, the last General Election proves that.

So back up that statements you are posting about - stop with the whinge and come up with facts. If you do then more people may actually listen, but at the moment you are saying a straw sample of people died in a two year period - that means absolutely nothing on its own, nothing. Go and rant in a corner if you don't understand that not everyone will latch on to something from the Mirror. You could though if you are so vehemently opposed to the Conservatives ask yourself how many troops died under the last labour government - go for it, give us a figure for that.

Why don't you start your own thread about that and I will comment. Cheers.

Edit - I notice, you have never actually started a thread, so there you go, that could be your first.

I have something relevant, interesting and topical to share with people I may start a thread. If all I will be doing is acting like a child and twisting a situation until it fits my personal viewpoint of the world, I won't, that would make me like the other 15 year olds on here who think they have some special insight that makes their opinion somehow important - no offence, I appreciate you may now have passed your 15th birthday.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Actually, I read every name, but as I said to the OP, it isn't down to me to check every one of your posts. I do, however, check everything that I post. Sometimes, if it suits me, I will check other people's, as you well know Solo. I've caught you talking utter bollocks more times than I've had hot dinners - so much so that you rarely ever come back to me, even when you say you will

And yes, go through each and every name. It's you that posted it to support your position, after all.

As for the two you linked too - Terry McGarvey to start with - He wasn't "hauled" anywhere. He was requested to attend a meeting, as many on benefits are required to do. The cause of death has been listed as liver disease - the guy was going to die anyway. He wasn't pronounced as fit to work and his benefits weren't stopped. He just died. He would have died anyway, it wasn't ATOS that killed him.

Elaine Lowe - She hadn't lost her benefit and it was her own decision (probably egged on by nonsense articles like the one in the OP coupled with her own problems) that led her to commit suicide. Had she bothered to open her mail, she would have found she had nothing to worry about.

Both are poor examples of the point you're trying to make.

Looking around online at this story I don't think the right question was asked about these figures.
Of course some people will have died as a direct result of being sent back to work, some will have killed themselves as a result of this action and the majority would probably have died anyway.

It would be interesting to have this fully disected and analyzed.

(Edit)

Having said that, this is people's lives we're talking about so even if only a few hundred or a couple thousand have died as a direct result of this action, these are human beings with friends, families and they are now devastated.
This isn't some minor printing error or there isn't some acceptable allowance for error number, these are all dead people.
One is too many but there seems to be quite a few.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Actually, I read every name, but as I said to the OP, it isn't down to me to check every one of your posts. I do, however, check everything that I post. Sometimes, if it suits me, I will check other people's, as you well know Solo. I've caught you talking utter bollocks more times than I've had hot dinners - so much so that you rarely ever come back to me, even when you say you will

And yes, go through each and every name. It's you that posted it to support your position, after all.

You may have read every name but would it really have been all that hard to google search them.? You are what you are, A Government funded dis-info agent. Is the pay good?.

I called you out over a year ago and since then a few other have called you out as well. I was probably the first here to suss you. I wont be the last. You are too obvious. The reason i dont reply to you is, You are not worth the #ing effort.

Now lose yourself Shill.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
You may have read every name but would it really have been all that hard to google search them.? You are what you are, A Government funded dis-info agent. Is the pay good?.

I called you out over a year ago and since then a few other have called you out as well. I was probably the first here to suss you. I wont be the last. You are too obvious. The reason i dont reply to you is, You are not worth the #ing effort.

Now lose yourself Shill.

Hahaha, whatever. It's the last recourse of the desperate poster to cry "Government paid disinfo agent"... Not even remotely true - in fact, as has always been the case, I don't hide behind the anonymity of the internet, I have in my Sig a link which goes straight to FB where I can be verified as a real person who has sod all to do with the Government.

It's down to you to prove your claims Solo, as it always has been. Once you've done the leg work, that's when I step in with the actual truth of the matter and trip you up. I've shot down the first two names you've pulled out of that list already - care for any more?

a reply to: stargatetravels

And as woodwardjnr pointed out earlier on this very page, these figures are not for people who were found fit to work and then died, but simply the amount of people who died "within weeks of their claim ending", which is as much an accounting practice than anything else - the DWP estimate a time of death as close to the time the claim ended.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Just had a look at that list. There were a fair few on it who did not even attend ESA assessments. They died prior to the assessment taling place either because of physical health problems or committed suicide out of fear their money would stop. Hardly the fault of the assessment process, is it? Many of these people would not even had their money stopped as they would still be in receipt of the assessment rate of ESA until a decision had been made.

Not wishing to speak ill of the dead but I am dubious as to some of the actual stories quoted as well. For example the guy who killed himself who was paralysed down one side of his body obviously meets support group criteria as he would not be able to walk 50m or manually propel a wheelchair. It is unlikely that he would even be called for assessment never mind being found capable of work. Is there any evidence that these stories are real or that the decisions were the main contributing factor in the deaths?

ETA the list has 69 people on it. Of those listed 21 were related to other benefits and 9 were pre assessment. 4 of those listed meet automatic support group criteria, particularly those in receipt of active chemo or radiotherapy so I'm a bit dubious as to the authenticity of these stories. I don't doubt their deaths, but I do question the reasons cited.