So, people really are dying because of the Condems 'austerity'.

[Mister M]

You're right in saying we don't know the circumstances, but the families SHOULD have made sure they where being looked after all there's no excuse unless you have no contact. My mother is 85 and living in her own home .As a family we make sure she is well cared for, frequent visit's daily phone call's nieghbours have contact numbers, everything in place should she be taken ill dueing the night and so on, that's what careing families do .People may blame the Goverment when things go wrong that's easy. They should look on their own doorstep first and think could i have done more.

 

I wonder what more Pete Woodcocks family could do?

 

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2014/05/02/man-with-cancer-told-to-give-up-treatment-and-join-work-programme-to-keep-benefits/

 

Or Mr Barlows?

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/dying-merseyside-man-told-benefits-6924979

 

The families of the people who died as a consequence of decisions made will probably be wracked with guilt already, do they need a stranger pointing the finger at them saying "it's all your fault"? - No.

As others have said, people have different circumstances and may feel too ashamed to go to their families, or don't want them to worry.

I do know that when a global company gets hundreds of millions of pounds worth of taxpayers money to administer a system so that people aren't left to starve, or commit suicide in desperation there's something wrong somewhere. And we're not talking a few cases here and there, this is happening on a large scale.

[*_ash_*]

I wonder what more Pete Woodcocks family could do?

 

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2014/05/02/man-with-cancer-told-to-give-up-treatment-and-join-work-programme-to-keep-benefits/

 

Or Mr Barlows?

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/dying-merseyside-man-told-benefits-6924979

 

The families of the people who died as a consequence of decisions made will probably be wracked with guilt already, do they need a stranger pointing the finger at them saying "it's all your fault"? - No.

As others have said, people have different circumstances and may feel too ashamed to go to their families, or don't want them to worry.

I do know that when a global company gets hundreds of millions of pounds worth of taxpayers money to administer a system so that people aren't left to starve, or commit suicide in desperation there's something wrong somewhere. And we're not talking a few cases here and there, this is happening on a large scale.

 

It's not saying their fault at all Mr M.

 

If you could find an efficient way of making sure their is a system that NO ONE will slip through, then go for it. Let's hear it.

 

If you can do it, then put yourself up, and I'll vote for you.

[Mr Bloom]

I don't think I've seen that (or it doesn't seem as common as the former).

 

-

 

Either way, the way things are going it looks to me like 'the people' are wanting more local control, and we'll get it. More control for councils to raise money and decide how it's spent. I wonder if Sheff CC has anticipated this and why they introduced the parking permits to raise money.

 

:hihi: Oh dear....I think you might have also have been duped by Cameron's forked tongue. When he said he was giving local authorities more control over their own spending what he actually meant was that he didn't want to seem like the nasty one who was going to have to choose between care homes and mental health provision, after he had slashed their budget, so he was leaving that in the hands of the local councils, many of them Labour, conveneniently, so it looked like they were the nasty party. It's genius really as so many people fall for it!

[Mecky]

I think in most cases we were sold a pup in being told to let "the professionals" deal with everything, when in most cases these professionals simply don't care that much, they just clock off and go home.

 

Well that's society. When thatcher deregulated the banks in 1980 few people, except people like me, thought, "hang on, what's going to happen 20-30 years down the line?" For many it was a case of get in quick, generate as much money for themselves as possible, by whatever means - generally crooked or at lease amoral, then get out before they get caught and hope that nobody notices. It's still happening even now

Edited December 2, 2014 by Mecky

[Anna B]

:hihi: Oh dear....I think you might have also have been duped by Cameron's forked tongue. When he said he was giving local authorities more control over their own spending what he actually meant was that he didn't want to seem like the nasty one who was going to have to choose between care homes and mental health provision, after he had slashed their budget, so he was leaving that in the hands of the local councils, many of them Labour, conveneniently, so it looked like they were the nasty party. It's genius really as so many people fall for it!

 

Too true.

 

I love this trend towards 'giving control to XXX to run their own budget' then failing to provide them with enough money to run a pie shop let alone a social care service.

 

To be honest, it's never occurred to me that people couldn't see through this. It's just so obvious that it's a cost cutting exercise wrapped up as a benefit...

[Mister M]

It's not saying their fault at all Mr M.

 

If you could find an efficient way of making sure their is a system that NO ONE will slip through, then go for it. Let's hear it.

 

If you can do it, then put yourself up, and I'll vote for you.

 

If thousands are 'slipping through' (in reality, they are being forced through), then I would question the efficiency of the policy.

In the reports I've read, untrained people are making work capability assessments, in spite of what their own GPs recommendations.

Given that GPs know their patients medical history better than the DWP, then shouldn't the GP's decision play more of a central role?

If as many people were dying as a consequence of some other Government policy or inaction - would Ministers still press on regardless? No I don't think so either.

[Mecky]

If as many people were dying as a consequence of some other Government policy or inaction - would Ministers still press on regardless? No I don't think so either.

 

Well, they are doing and they are doing. Back in 2010, on this forum, I told people what would happen if the tories got back into power - i.e. safety nets removed from society and was told I was wrong. Now they are seeing I was right

[truman]

Too true.

 

I love this trend towards 'giving control to XXX to run their own budget' then failing to provide them with enough money to run a pie shop let alone a social care service.

 

To be honest, it's never occurred to me that people couldn't see through this. It's just so obvious that it's a cost cutting exercise wrapped up as a benefit...

 

See my post #77 to see what happens when they do get the money..Porsches on the council anyone?

[Oh Carol]

Well, they are doing and they are doing. Back in 2010, on this forum, I told people what would happen if the tories got back into power - i.e. safety nets removed from society and was told I was wrong. Now they are seeing I was right

Safety nets have to be paid for and if Labour had been re-elected this country would be double bankrupt instead of single.

Far too many people shout about their rights but little about personal responsibility!

[Cyclone]

I appreciate that it's a large payout, and his behaviour doesn't appear to have been all above board. But I'm not sure how it's related to them "getting the money". It's just another example of a politician lining their own nest.