Woman commits suicide when Benefits stop.

[Anna B]

Not true. People who are incapable of working are being driven to despair over the loss of benefits which are their only income, and that's not the same thing at all.

 

If you're found fit to work by the ESA panel and it's upheld on appeal then you are told to go and claim JSA, but the JSA people won't allow you to claim if you're clearly too unwell to go and look for work, so they deny your application too.

 

Good points.

 

To have two government departments deliberately taking opposing views in order to withhold benefits has got to be illegal surely?

 

I notice none of the apologists for the government on this forum have come back with an answer to that one.

 

Has it been tested in court? It needs the likes of Michael Mansfield to take it on as a test case.

 

It really is a disgrace.

[Obelix]

[/b]

 

Good points.

 

To have two government departments deliberately taking opposing views in order to withhold benefits has got to be illegal surely?

 

I notice none of the apologists for the government on this forum have come back with an answer to that one.

 

Has it been tested in court? It needs the likes of Michael Mansfield to take it on as a test case.

 

It really is a disgrace.

 

Why do you think people need to be apologists? Or is your hatred such that you cannot see any other way?

 

One department will be in error. Just because one is doesn't place the Govt suddenly in the dock. Fix the error and move on.

[*_ash_*]

Unbelievable.....

 

Why do people still try to defend the indefensible?

 

Does this mean you blame the government for this woman's death?

 

Did you read the article?

 

If you know all the facts, can you answer why she had her 'benefits stopped' [which we don't know if it means all], in January but waited until November, 2 weeks before her appeal hearing, to [sadly] feel the need to take her own life?

 

Do you think this decision last year was the entire reason for her demise?

 

-

 

Did someone earlier post divide and conquer again? Could this be an example of a media article being written to conquer the government by using the case of a poor old woman who now can't answer for herself? It looks that way to me, and her sister is probably trying to rid herself of guilt by stating obvious empathy winning comments.

 

-

 

Of course, the entire reason for this case COULD be that she stewed over the stress of the tribunal and ended her life because of this.

 

I'm no fan of Atos, btw. I find their methods deplorable to people with MI.

 

If her life ended because of this, then I would look to the percentage of people who don't appeal, and wonder why they didn't. There will be a few that were incapable mentally or agree with the result of their assessments, but the rest are the ones who knew they weren't entitled to DLA. They might be laughing at their claims over the years, at the detriment to everyone else who has to go through this awful process.

[Mecky]

Why do you think people need to be apologists? Or is your hatred such that you cannot see any other way?

 

One department will be in error. Just because one is doesn't place the Govt suddenly in the dock. Fix the error and move on.

 

But if it was a Labour government ...

[angos]

I'm glad you've posted that link.

I can never understand why people get so worked up worrying about other people making fraudulent benefit claims, when those people are so much in the minority.

 

The added suffering that is being created to those chronically ill people and the disabled since this government system was introduced, is causing so much further worry and distress to people who don't deserve it.

 

I know there has to be a system in place to assess people, and i realise it isn't only this government that have been responsible for targeting genuine claimants, but this system seems to be creating more unnecessary suffering then the previous system, from what we hear.

Why don't they focus more attention on tax fraud, if they want to save money!

 

Someone I know has been diagnosed with a severe form of early onset Parkinson's disease in her fifties and is now unable to do the work she so enjoyed because of it. As if that's not bad enough her life is being made more miserable because of a re-assessment test that has to be repeated.

 

Or do what they are doing and concentrate on both, government needs to look an many ways to save money, whilst making sure everyone that should pay tax, pays it.

[southcoast]

So because your dad was able to work that makes everybody capable of working?

 

Even those who are terminally ill and not likely to survive long enough to get through the interview process?

 

How about those who have had a stroke and are aphasic or learning to live with hemiplegia?

 

Exactly where do you draw the line?

 

 

I work with people who have had a stroke,and one who had a heart attack,if you want to work you will work,too many think they have a divine right to be lazy and sponge off the rest of us.

[Halibut]

I work with people who have had a stroke,and one who had a heart attack,if you want to work you will work,too many think they have a divine right to be lazy and sponge off the rest of us.

 

Strokes affect people in different ways. You appreciate that being unable to talk or use your limbs can make work difficult don't you?

[charmer]

I'm glad you've posted that link.

I can never understand why people get so worked up worrying about other people making fraudulent benefit claims, when those people are so much in the minority.

 

The added suffering that is being created to those chronically ill people and the disabled since this government system was introduced, is causing so much further worry and distress to people who don't deserve it.

 

I know there has to be a system in place to assess people, and i realise it isn't only this government that have been responsible for targeting genuine claimants, but this system seems to be creating more unnecessary suffering then the previous system, from what we hear.

Why don't they focus more attention on tax fraud, if they want to save money!

 

Someone I know has been diagnosed with a severe form of early onset Parkinson's disease in her fifties and is now unable to do the work she so enjoyed because of it. As if that's not bad enough her life is being made more miserable because of a re-assessment test that has to be repeated.

 

 

I can never understand this argument. We are all aware that people claiming fraudulent benefits isn't the biggest problem our society faces. This does not mean that we should ignore it or fail to address individual issues when they arise.

 

It is akin to saying "look, I know this person burgled a house, but lets ignore his crime because we haven't caught all the rapists yet".

 

Yes, large companies should pay all their tax. I read this morning that Thames Water are planning to stop paying corporation tax for ten years to help pay for upgrades to their infrastructure (source: the metro). This should not be allowed and I am appalled if this is accurate. However, we shouldn't ignore the smaller problems.

 

A professional said this person was fit to work, an appeal supported this.

 

You people seem to fail to understand the agenda of the media outlet responsible for this story. They are not trying to inform or give a balanced view. It's agenda is to sell copies, so sensationalist rubbish that lacks any foundation is the dish of the day. It reels people like you in, stoking your anger and giving you something to rage about.

[angos]

I can never understand this argument. We are all aware that people claiming fraudulent benefits isn't the biggest problem our society faces. This does not mean that we should ignore it or fail to address individual issues when they arise.

 

It is akin to saying "look, I know this person burgled a house, but lets ignore his crime because we haven't caught all the rapists yet".

 

Yes, large companies should pay all their tax. I read this morning that Thames Water are planning to stop paying corporation tax for ten years to help pay for upgrades to their infrastructure (source: the metro). This should not be allowed and I am appalled if this is accurate. However, we shouldn't ignore the smaller problems.

 

A professional said this person was fit to work, an appeal supported this.

 

You people seem to fail to understand the agenda of the media outlet responsible for this story. They are not trying to inform or give a balanced view. It's agenda is to sell copies, so sensationalist rubbish that lacks any foundation is the dish of the day. It reels people like you in, stoking your anger and giving you something to rage about.

 

Why not?

 

Spending company funds on new infrastructure is an allowable business expense which reduces a companies tax liability. You can't expect them to pay tax on profits they didn't make.

[charmer]

Why not?

 

Spending company funds on new infrastructure is an allowable business expense which reduces a companies tax liability. You can't expect them to pay tax on profits they didn't make.

 

 

Yes, but you still have to pay tax on the profits (ie money after expenditure).

 

The story suggests that Thames Water will not be paying any tax at all.