Iain Duncan Smith resigns from Cabinet

[sutty27]

I don't think they have any living costs. He's the PM. He gets a nice free house in a very posh part of London quite close to work.

 

David and Samantha Cameron's son died suddenly aged just six in 2009 befor he became PM so if he did claim it he didn't get it whilst he was PM.

 

Some did put in a freedom of information request to the DWP but the information is withheld as it falls under the exemption in Section

40(2) and 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; these exemptions

cover personal information and disclosures which are prohibited by law.

[I1L2T3]

David and Samantha Cameron's son died suddenly aged just six in 2009 befor he became PM so if he did claim it he didn't get it whilst he was PM.

 

Some did put in a freedom of information request to the DWP but the information is withheld as it falls under the exemption in Section

40(2) and 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; these exemptions

cover personal information and disclosures which are prohibited by law.

 

So basically they won't give any info to clarify whether he did or didn't make a claim?

[sutty27]

I used verifiable figures as a counterbalance to the general complaint you made that lots of people get benefits who don't need them.

 

So you think because some people don't claim benefits its OK for those that do to claim more then they are entitled to claim.

[Mister M]

So you think because some people don't claim benefits its OK for those that do to claim more then they are entitled to claim.

 

Did I say that?

[sutty27]

So basically they won't give any info to clarify whether he did or didn't make a claim?

 

They would do the same for you and I if someone requested information about us.

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2016 at 21:47 ----------

 

Did I say that?

 

That's what it looked like.

[Mister M]

They would do the same for you and I if someone requested information about us.

 

---------- Post added 20-03-2016 at 21:47 ----------

 

 

That's what it looked like.

 

I presented those figures as a counterbalance to the general complaint you made that lots of people get benefits who don't need them.

[sutty27]

I presented those figures as a counterbalance to the general complaint you made that lots of people get benefits who don't need them.

 

It wasn't a complaint, it was a statement of fact.

 

If the purpose of a benefit is to help with extra living costs it should only be given to people with extra living costs, and not to people with no extra living costs.

[ECCOnoob]

Didnt David Cameron get money for his disabled child? i am sure he didnt need it

 

David Cameron's son had severe cerebral palsy and epilepsy.

 

Its a severe and life long condition.

 

Of course he bloody got money for him. ITS A PERMANENT DISABILITY.

 

Do you know who doesn't deserve money. Maureen who has mild back pain and claims she needs mobility assistance and a carer to make her meals. Derek who is morbidly obese and claims he can never work and needs a carer to do all his chores for him.

 

Those are the type of people who deserve the cuts. Those are the type of people that these current reforms are targeting. People who could work but choose not to. People who claims things that they neither need, use or should be entitled to.

 

Don't start muddying the issues.

 

Cameron pays tax like the rest of the working population. He is perfectly entitled to use the NHS and claim benefits for someone WHOSE CONDITION WARRANTS IT.

 

Not everyone does. Some people deserve to have their money cut.

 

Remember the statement from the Department:

 

"a significant number of people are likely to be getting the benefit despite having minimal to no ongoing daily living extra costs".

 

:: The DWP said it reviewed a "number of cases" and in 96% of them the "likely ongoing extra costs of daily living were nil, low or minimal". The department's argument is that many of the aids and appliances which people are currently getting points for are provided free by the NHS and councils, may already be in people's homes or could be bought cheaply

 

Taxpayers giving money to Claimants for aids which the taxpayers have already paid out for through the NHS.

 

You don't think that warrants some investigations, assessment and cuts where necessary??

 

Attack on the disabled my backside.

[I1L2T3]

David Cameron's son had severe cerebral palsy and epilepsy.

 

Its a severe and life long condition.

 

Of course he bloody got money for him. ITS A PERMANENT DISABILITY.

 

Do you know who doesn't deserve money. Maureen who has mild back pain and claims she needs mobility assistance and a carer to make her meals. Derek who is morbidly obese and claims he can never work and needs a carer to do all his chores for him.

 

Those are the type of people who deserve the cuts. Those are the type of people that these current reforms are targeting. People who could work but choose not to. People who claims things that they neither need, use or should be entitled to.

 

Don't start muddying the issues.

 

Cameron pays tax like the rest of the working population. He is perfectly entitled to use the NHS and claim benefits for someone WHOSE CONDITION WARRANTS IT.

 

Not everyone does. Some people deserve to have their money cut.

 

Remember the statement from the Department:

 

"a significant number of people are likely to be getting the benefit despite having minimal to no ongoing daily living extra costs".

 

:: The DWP said it reviewed a "number of cases" and in 96% of them the "likely ongoing extra costs of daily living were nil, low or minimal". The department's argument is that many of the aids and appliances which people are currently getting points for are provided free by the NHS and councils, may already be in people's homes or could be bought cheaply

 

Taxpayers giving money to Claimants for aids which the taxpayers have already paid out for through the NHS.

 

You don't think that warrants some investigations, assessment and cuts where necessary??

 

Attack on the disabled my backside.

 

PiP definitely needed reform for sure as it was implemented poorly to begin with in 2013.

 

Yes if you take PiP as a standalone payment you could argue that some people don't need it as an ongoing payment. But here is the brutal truth and this is going to illustrate exactly what the problem is with the proposed change. Rightly or wrongly PiP has become a kind of top-up to income and taking it away is going to blow a big hole in the finances of many disabled people. It's as simple as that. People have become dependent on it and that is why so many Tory back benchers became nervous. They realised the implication of removing it. Especially so as the benchmarking seemed to indicate the target could be to remove it from 96% of claimants.

 

You can argue the rights and wrongs but there you have the truth.

Edited March 20, 2016 by I1L2T3

[banjodeano]

David Cameron's son had severe cerebral palsy and epilepsy.

 

Its a severe and life long condition.

 

Of course he bloody got money for him. ITS A PERMANENT DISABILITY.

Do you know who doesn't deserve money. Maureen who has mild back pain and claims she needs mobility assistance and a carer to make her meals. Derek who is morbidly obese and claims he can never work and needs a carer to do all his chores for him.

 

Those are the type of people who deserve the cuts. Those are the type of people that these current reforms are targeting. People who could work but choose not to. People who claims things that they neither need, use or should be entitled to.

 

Don't start muddying the issues.

 

Cameron pays tax like the rest of the working population. He is perfectly entitled to use the NHS and claim benefits for someone WHOSE CONDITION WARRANTS IT.

 

Not everyone does. Some people deserve to have their money cut.

 

Remember the statement from the Department:

 

"a significant number of people are likely to be getting the benefit despite having minimal to no ongoing daily living extra costs".

 

:: The DWP said it reviewed a "number of cases" and in 96% of them the "likely ongoing extra costs of daily living were nil, low or minimal". The department's argument is that many of the aids and appliances which people are currently getting points for are provided free by the NHS and councils, may already be in people's homes or could be bought cheaply

 

Taxpayers giving money to Claimants for aids which the taxpayers have already paid out for through the NHS.

 

You don't think that warrants some investigations, assessment and cuts where necessary??

 

Attack on the disabled my backside.

what absolute TOSH.....someone who is worth several millions claims money from the system for his sick child, the man has no shame :gag::gag: