Tribal voting

First published in Letters

IT SADDENS me that the people of Newport continue, due to tribal reasons, to vote for a party that has failed Newport and Wales in every way and not on their record of deliverance while in power.

Wales is now at rock bottom of every performance league table in education, health and the economy. Newport, well, we can all see around us of the demise of a once buoyant town.

Carwyn Jones blames all the ills of Wales on Coalition cuts whilst wasting billions on empire building, a daft novelty language and vanity projects.

Wales has received billions (£6bn) in hand-outs from the EU, enough to have nationalised the Severn Bridge (a key barrier to private enterprise setting up in Wales), improve the road and rail networks and anything else that could attract businesses to Wales.

Every city along the M4 corridor is prosperous from London, Reading, Swindon to Bristol, then bang, you hit the Severn Bridge and it’s like you have flown away to some developing country.

C Bradley Caerleon Road Newport

Comments (100)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:21pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Banjalucka says...

Good points. Total waste of space is WAG and costly
Good points. Total waste of space is WAG and costly Banjalucka
  • Score: 16

2:40pm Thu 23 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Just saddens me that people to continue to vote.

I'd much rather see government buildings razed to the ground instead but - hey ho- can't please all the people all of the time.
Just saddens me that people to continue to vote. I'd much rather see government buildings razed to the ground instead but - hey ho- can't please all the people all of the time. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -8

4:07pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

You make a valid point, now lets hear you condemn the Tribes of the South East of England for continually voting Tory
You make a valid point, now lets hear you condemn the Tribes of the South East of England for continually voting Tory Mr Angry
  • Score: -8

5:06pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Newportg says...

Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party!
Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party! Newportg
  • Score: -6

5:11pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Mervyn James says...

Newportg wrote:
Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party!
the people who complain he most vote the least, who cares what they think ? If they want change they can do as we do and vote for what they want, none of the above, being not voted for by none with a brain.
[quote][p][bold]Newportg[/bold] wrote: Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party![/p][/quote]the people who complain he most vote the least, who cares what they think ? If they want change they can do as we do and vote for what they want, none of the above, being not voted for by none with a brain. Mervyn James
  • Score: -15

7:18pm Thu 23 Jan 14

scraptheWAG says...

Newportg wrote:
Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party!
i take it you are on benefits or work in the public sector? or your father voted labour
[quote][p][bold]Newportg[/bold] wrote: Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party![/p][/quote]i take it you are on benefits or work in the public sector? or your father voted labour scraptheWAG
  • Score: 5

7:29pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
Newportg wrote:
Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party!
i take it you are on benefits or work in the public sector? or your father voted labour
Repetative, Pathetic and stupid , go and troll somewhere else
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newportg[/bold] wrote: Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party![/p][/quote]i take it you are on benefits or work in the public sector? or your father voted labour[/p][/quote]Repetative, Pathetic and stupid , go and troll somewhere else Mr Angry
  • Score: -1

7:37pm Thu 23 Jan 14

scraptheWAG says...

Mr Angry wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
Newportg wrote:
Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party!
i take it you are on benefits or work in the public sector? or your father voted labour
Repetative, Pathetic and stupid , go and troll somewhere else
no need to get personal just wanted to know why some people feel the need to vote for labour
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newportg[/bold] wrote: Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party![/p][/quote]i take it you are on benefits or work in the public sector? or your father voted labour[/p][/quote]Repetative, Pathetic and stupid , go and troll somewhere else[/p][/quote]no need to get personal just wanted to know why some people feel the need to vote for labour scraptheWAG
  • Score: 1

7:39pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Why should they vote Tory or UKIP ?

I will get personal because I happen to thing your insults are repugnant and pathetic just like you ?
Why should they vote Tory or UKIP ? I will get personal because I happen to thing your insults are repugnant and pathetic just like you ? Mr Angry
  • Score: -2

8:02pm Thu 23 Jan 14

scraptheWAG says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Why should they vote Tory or UKIP ?

I will get personal because I happen to thing your insults are repugnant and pathetic just like you ?
people vote for tory and ukip as they are a party for the hard working and ambitious people who stand on their on two feet people vote labour as they look to the state to support them most in my opinion are idle
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: Why should they vote Tory or UKIP ? I will get personal because I happen to thing your insults are repugnant and pathetic just like you ?[/p][/quote]people vote for tory and ukip as they are a party for the hard working and ambitious people who stand on their on two feet people vote labour as they look to the state to support them most in my opinion are idle scraptheWAG
  • Score: 4

8:24pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Why should they vote Tory or UKIP ?

I will get personal because I happen to thing your insults are repugnant and pathetic just like you ?
people vote for tory and ukip as they are a party for the hard working and ambitious people who stand on their on two feet people vote labour as they look to the state to support them most in my opinion are idle
So no Tories claim working tax credits, or child benefit then. Or no Tories have ever been unemployed and claimed job seekers, or ever claim. housing benefits ?

Rather simplistic and stupid outlook from a stupid troll. I work, and I don't vote Tory so in your world I'm idle am I ? An implication I resent
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: Why should they vote Tory or UKIP ? I will get personal because I happen to thing your insults are repugnant and pathetic just like you ?[/p][/quote]people vote for tory and ukip as they are a party for the hard working and ambitious people who stand on their on two feet people vote labour as they look to the state to support them most in my opinion are idle[/p][/quote]So no Tories claim working tax credits, or child benefit then. Or no Tories have ever been unemployed and claimed job seekers, or ever claim. housing benefits ? Rather simplistic and stupid outlook from a stupid troll. I work, and I don't vote Tory so in your world I'm idle am I ? An implication I resent Mr Angry
  • Score: -5

10:37pm Thu 23 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Why should they vote Tory or UKIP ?

I will get personal because I happen to thing your insults are repugnant and pathetic just like you ?
people vote for tory and ukip as they are a party for the hard working and ambitious people who stand on their on two feet people vote labour as they look to the state to support them most in my opinion are idle
Wow - scraptheWAG must know a lot of people if he knows every Labour voter eh?

I wonder stW - were you abused by a labour supporter as a child or something? Did they beat you with a red rosette? Awww did you get dragged to union meetings instead of being allowed to play in the park with the other boys and girls?

You seem to have a completely irrational obsession with labour, I'm just curious to know why... it's not like they're tories or anything.
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: Why should they vote Tory or UKIP ? I will get personal because I happen to thing your insults are repugnant and pathetic just like you ?[/p][/quote]people vote for tory and ukip as they are a party for the hard working and ambitious people who stand on their on two feet people vote labour as they look to the state to support them most in my opinion are idle[/p][/quote]Wow - scraptheWAG must know a lot of people if he knows every Labour voter eh? I wonder stW - were you abused by a labour supporter as a child or something? Did they beat you with a red rosette? Awww did you get dragged to union meetings instead of being allowed to play in the park with the other boys and girls? You seem to have a completely irrational obsession with labour, I'm just curious to know why... it's not like they're tories or anything. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -6

9:08am Fri 24 Jan 14

Mervyn James says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Why should they vote Tory or UKIP ?

I will get personal because I happen to thing your insults are repugnant and pathetic just like you ?
people vote for tory and ukip as they are a party for the hard working and ambitious people who stand on their on two feet people vote labour as they look to the state to support them most in my opinion are idle
Labour voters are benefit scrounging chavist scum, and tory voters are hard-working propping them up ? I think you just lost the whole plot frankly, talk about generalization !!!! Don't scrap the WAG, scrap this poster.
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: Why should they vote Tory or UKIP ? I will get personal because I happen to thing your insults are repugnant and pathetic just like you ?[/p][/quote]people vote for tory and ukip as they are a party for the hard working and ambitious people who stand on their on two feet people vote labour as they look to the state to support them most in my opinion are idle[/p][/quote]Labour voters are benefit scrounging chavist scum, and tory voters are hard-working propping them up ? I think you just lost the whole plot frankly, talk about generalization !!!! Don't scrap the WAG, scrap this poster. Mervyn James
  • Score: 3

10:18am Fri 24 Jan 14

Walter Devereux says...

Can't we do both?
Can't we do both? Walter Devereux
  • Score: 4

12:30pm Fri 24 Jan 14

welshmen says...

You say gvmushroom:
"You seem to have a completely irrational obsession with labour, I'm just curious to know why... it's not like they're tories or anything."

YOU HAVING A LAUGH....
Where have you been for 15 years, we've had two wars, one we are still fighting, getting rid of thousands of our Soldiers, over 5 Million Immigrants +, ten's of thousands of bogus Asylum seekers, millions out of work, a flood of regular EU cheap labour, HIV and TB on the rise through third world immigration, £ 2 million costing the NHS through health tourism every year and rising, schools with waiting lists for pupils, several schools that don't have English as the first language, millions waiting for housing, thousands of food banks open in the UK, a few in this City, £97 Trillion National Debt, I could go on YES WE HAVE A LOT TO THANK YOUR LABOUR PARTY FOR, their leaders still have alleged war crimes to deal with, THE TORIES & LIBERALS ARE ONLY A LITTLE BETTER & UKIP & HOPHEAD ARE DREAMERS.

In my opinion the only way to get back the respect of the British people is to vote The British National Party in at the next General Election, otherwise our National debt will double in the next five years, no one will stop the flood of foreigners coming here that the LABOUR PARTY went looking for in promoting Genocide of the BRITISH RACE, not withstanding the biggest threat to our way of life and Culture," Islam", Islam doesn't do democracy....Christi
an/phobia & British/phobia rife in our Country....
You say gvmushroom: "You seem to have a completely irrational obsession with labour, I'm just curious to know why... it's not like they're tories or anything." YOU HAVING A LAUGH.... Where have you been for 15 years, we've had two wars, one we are still fighting, getting rid of thousands of our Soldiers, over 5 Million Immigrants +, ten's of thousands of bogus Asylum seekers, millions out of work, a flood of regular EU cheap labour, HIV and TB on the rise through third world immigration, £ 2 million costing the NHS through health tourism every year and rising, schools with waiting lists for pupils, several schools that don't have English as the first language, millions waiting for housing, thousands of food banks open in the UK, a few in this City, £97 Trillion National Debt, I could go on YES WE HAVE A LOT TO THANK YOUR LABOUR PARTY FOR, their leaders still have alleged war crimes to deal with, THE TORIES & LIBERALS ARE ONLY A LITTLE BETTER & UKIP & HOPHEAD ARE DREAMERS. In my opinion the only way to get back the respect of the British people is to vote The British National Party in at the next General Election, otherwise our National debt will double in the next five years, no one will stop the flood of foreigners coming here that the LABOUR PARTY went looking for in promoting Genocide of the BRITISH RACE, not withstanding the biggest threat to our way of life and Culture," Islam", Islam doesn't do democracy....Christi an/phobia & British/phobia rife in our Country.... welshmen
  • Score: 6

1:20pm Fri 24 Jan 14

thomas35 says...

It surprises me that we daily hear peoples objections to floods of immigrants and the damage they do to our country and yet the same people can be seen having their cars washed regularly in the Sainsburys carparks by the same unwelcome eastern europeans!!!!..Got to get me a bucket and sponge.(r)
It surprises me that we daily hear peoples objections to floods of immigrants and the damage they do to our country and yet the same people can be seen having their cars washed regularly in the Sainsburys carparks by the same unwelcome eastern europeans!!!!..Got to get me a bucket and sponge.(r) thomas35
  • Score: 4

1:32pm Fri 24 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

welshmen wrote:
You say gvmushroom:
"You seem to have a completely irrational obsession with labour, I'm just curious to know why... it's not like they're tories or anything."

YOU HAVING A LAUGH....
Where have you been for 15 years, we've had two wars, one we are still fighting, getting rid of thousands of our Soldiers, over 5 Million Immigrants +, ten's of thousands of bogus Asylum seekers, millions out of work, a flood of regular EU cheap labour, HIV and TB on the rise through third world immigration, £ 2 million costing the NHS through health tourism every year and rising, schools with waiting lists for pupils, several schools that don't have English as the first language, millions waiting for housing, thousands of food banks open in the UK, a few in this City, £97 Trillion National Debt, I could go on YES WE HAVE A LOT TO THANK YOUR LABOUR PARTY FOR, their leaders still have alleged war crimes to deal with, THE TORIES & LIBERALS ARE ONLY A LITTLE BETTER & UKIP & HOPHEAD ARE DREAMERS.

In my opinion the only way to get back the respect of the British people is to vote The British National Party in at the next General Election, otherwise our National debt will double in the next five years, no one will stop the flood of foreigners coming here that the LABOUR PARTY went looking for in promoting Genocide of the BRITISH RACE, not withstanding the biggest threat to our way of life and Culture," Islam", Islam doesn't do democracy....Christi

an/phobia & British/phobia rife in our Country....
I'm an anarchist mate - they aren't my labour party. And the BNP? Don't make me laugh. Nick Griffin can't even run a business, let alone a country.
[quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: You say gvmushroom: "You seem to have a completely irrational obsession with labour, I'm just curious to know why... it's not like they're tories or anything." YOU HAVING A LAUGH.... Where have you been for 15 years, we've had two wars, one we are still fighting, getting rid of thousands of our Soldiers, over 5 Million Immigrants +, ten's of thousands of bogus Asylum seekers, millions out of work, a flood of regular EU cheap labour, HIV and TB on the rise through third world immigration, £ 2 million costing the NHS through health tourism every year and rising, schools with waiting lists for pupils, several schools that don't have English as the first language, millions waiting for housing, thousands of food banks open in the UK, a few in this City, £97 Trillion National Debt, I could go on YES WE HAVE A LOT TO THANK YOUR LABOUR PARTY FOR, their leaders still have alleged war crimes to deal with, THE TORIES & LIBERALS ARE ONLY A LITTLE BETTER & UKIP & HOPHEAD ARE DREAMERS. In my opinion the only way to get back the respect of the British people is to vote The British National Party in at the next General Election, otherwise our National debt will double in the next five years, no one will stop the flood of foreigners coming here that the LABOUR PARTY went looking for in promoting Genocide of the BRITISH RACE, not withstanding the biggest threat to our way of life and Culture," Islam", Islam doesn't do democracy....Christi an/phobia & British/phobia rife in our Country....[/p][/quote]I'm an anarchist mate - they aren't my labour party. And the BNP? Don't make me laugh. Nick Griffin can't even run a business, let alone a country. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -1

3:35pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Newportg says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
Newportg wrote:
Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party!
i take it you are on benefits or work in the public sector? or your father voted labour
No. I have never been out of work and am now retired.
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newportg[/bold] wrote: Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party![/p][/quote]i take it you are on benefits or work in the public sector? or your father voted labour[/p][/quote]No. I have never been out of work and am now retired. Newportg
  • Score: 6

3:53pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Newportg wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
Newportg wrote: Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party!
i take it you are on benefits or work in the public sector? or your father voted labour
No. I have never been out of work and am now retired.
So you are claiming The State Pension - a Benefit, so in the eyes of STW that makes you a Benefit Scrounger
[quote][p][bold]Newportg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newportg[/bold] wrote: Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party![/p][/quote]i take it you are on benefits or work in the public sector? or your father voted labour[/p][/quote]No. I have never been out of work and am now retired.[/p][/quote]So you are claiming The State Pension - a Benefit, so in the eyes of STW that makes you a Benefit Scrounger Mr Angry
  • Score: -6

5:17pm Fri 24 Jan 14

welshmen says...

gvmusroom says
"Nick Griffin can't even run a business, let alone a country" well who has run this Country successfully in the last 25 years? i wont ask you who's in charge of your lot because your all in charge are you not..

And your an Anarchist, your lot never even had a Legal British Party, they were involved in the " Tottenham Outrage", the "Houndsditch Murders", and "The Siege of Sidney Street", where Mr Winston Churchill was in attendance.

So what's the Anarchist way forward? how does that work, are you like Mr Jack Straw a fellow Communist now a Labour MP (Traitor) how do you see the solution to get our Country going again....

Other people who were made Bankrupt... Abraham Lincoln, Henry HEINZ, Donald TRUMP, Meat Loaf, Henry FORD,Peter Stringfellow, and my Footballing hero George BEST and lots more....
gvmusroom says "Nick Griffin can't even run a business, let alone a country" well who has run this Country successfully in the last 25 years? i wont ask you who's in charge of your lot because your all in charge are you not.. And your an Anarchist, your lot never even had a Legal British Party, they were involved in the " Tottenham Outrage", the "Houndsditch Murders", and "The Siege of Sidney Street", where Mr Winston Churchill was in attendance. So what's the Anarchist way forward? how does that work, are you like Mr Jack Straw a fellow Communist now a Labour MP (Traitor) how do you see the solution to get our Country going again.... Other people who were made Bankrupt... Abraham Lincoln, Henry HEINZ, Donald TRUMP, Meat Loaf, Henry FORD,Peter Stringfellow, and my Footballing hero George BEST and lots more.... welshmen
  • Score: 3

5:30pm Fri 24 Jan 14

welshmen says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Newportg wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
Newportg wrote: Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party!
i take it you are on benefits or work in the public sector? or your father voted labour
No. I have never been out of work and am now retired.
So you are claiming The State Pension - a Benefit, so in the eyes of STW that makes you a Benefit Scrounger
Your being grumpy again Mr Angry , Millions of British people who have worked for at least 50 years and have earned their right to a secure financial future and you try and disrespect them with your "Benefit Scrounger" jibe, a state pension is not a Benefit it's an Old Age Wage earned from Work....The British National Party if in power will index link that Old Age Wage, that will be (inflation proof)....
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newportg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newportg[/bold] wrote: Voting is a democratic right. I vote labour and will continue to do so. I greatly object to anybody suggesting how I should use my vote. If you don't like this council then get out and vote for another party![/p][/quote]i take it you are on benefits or work in the public sector? or your father voted labour[/p][/quote]No. I have never been out of work and am now retired.[/p][/quote]So you are claiming The State Pension - a Benefit, so in the eyes of STW that makes you a Benefit Scrounger[/p][/quote]Your being grumpy again Mr Angry , Millions of British people who have worked for at least 50 years and have earned their right to a secure financial future and you try and disrespect them with your "Benefit Scrounger" jibe, a state pension is not a Benefit it's an Old Age Wage earned from Work....The British National Party if in power will index link that Old Age Wage, that will be (inflation proof).... welshmen
  • Score: 11

8:00pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Suggest you read the thread. The troll known as scrap the Wag made stupid generalization about labour voters being benefit scroungers, the person replying said he was retired, never been unemployed. As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake, I was highlighting the stupidity of STW's postings, not attacking pensioners.

Or don't you get irony. ?
Suggest you read the thread. The troll known as scrap the Wag made stupid generalization about labour voters being benefit scroungers, the person replying said he was retired, never been unemployed. As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake, I was highlighting the stupidity of STW's postings, not attacking pensioners. Or don't you get irony. ? Mr Angry
  • Score: -5

5:35pm Sat 25 Jan 14

welshmen says...

Mr Angry you say:
" As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake,"
The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....
Mr Angry you say: " As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake," The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way.... welshmen
  • Score: 6

7:41pm Sat 25 Jan 14

scraptheWAG says...

welshmen wrote:
Mr Angry you say:
" As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake,"
The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....
why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle
[quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: Mr Angry you say: " As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake," The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....[/p][/quote]why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle scraptheWAG
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
welshmen wrote:
Mr Angry you say:
" As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake,"
The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....
why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle
You have evidence do you ,? Or is it someone I know down the pub, knows someone ?
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: Mr Angry you say: " As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake," The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....[/p][/quote]why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle[/p][/quote]You have evidence do you ,? Or is it someone I know down the pub, knows someone ? Mr Angry
  • Score: -1

10:07pm Sat 25 Jan 14

welshmen says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
welshmen wrote:
Mr Angry you say:
" As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake,"
The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....
why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle
You don't seem to understand how much we our Pensioners, with out them most us wouldn't be here today, taken out off context over a comment made against you by Mr Angry they became targeted and I will defend them.

No doubt as you say there are so called disabled on the incapacity benefit and people working that should be on incapacity benefit but can't live on it, we all know by the Media and most politicians the benefit culture are the ruination of our Countries financial position....NOT....t
he bankers were and are still our problem and will be until we give them the sack, Jail the guilty and make them pay back the TAX payers lost or gambled money, the poor are not to blame it's past and present Governments who think more of foreigner's than their own People.

STW... 58% of the WORLDS WEALTH is owned by just 1% of the people, world financial domination is sort by the few either buying their way or creating wars to accomplish their desire, Saudi Arabia are backing the rebels in Syria, Iran & Russia are backing Assad, Saudi Arabia along with Pakistan support Al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia are the cash cow for Islam in this Country financing many of the 1600 Mosques in our Country, to qualify for Mosque money they have to have the HATE preachers from Saudi Arabia in those Mosques, the moderate Muslims know this and are trying ti deal with it by refusing to accept the hate preachers, but as we all know the radicals threaten their own and get their way, the Muslims are taught from very young by Islam to hate non believers, those how chose to ignore this do so at this Countries future, this is more important than any benefit scam and is minuscule compared to our Counties Future, as to your pet hate the WAG, they are not fit for purpose same as our Councillor's, they all seem to stumble from one disaster to another....
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: Mr Angry you say: " As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake," The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....[/p][/quote]why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle[/p][/quote]You don't seem to understand how much we our Pensioners, with out them most us wouldn't be here today, taken out off context over a comment made against you by Mr Angry they became targeted and I will defend them. No doubt as you say there are so called disabled on the incapacity benefit and people working that should be on incapacity benefit but can't live on it, we all know by the Media and most politicians the benefit culture are the ruination of our Countries financial position....NOT....t he bankers were and are still our problem and will be until we give them the sack, Jail the guilty and make them pay back the TAX payers lost or gambled money, the poor are not to blame it's past and present Governments who think more of foreigner's than their own People. STW... 58% of the WORLDS WEALTH is owned by just 1% of the people, world financial domination is sort by the few either buying their way or creating wars to accomplish their desire, Saudi Arabia are backing the rebels in Syria, Iran & Russia are backing Assad, Saudi Arabia along with Pakistan support Al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia are the cash cow for Islam in this Country financing many of the 1600 Mosques in our Country, to qualify for Mosque money they have to have the HATE preachers from Saudi Arabia in those Mosques, the moderate Muslims know this and are trying ti deal with it by refusing to accept the hate preachers, but as we all know the radicals threaten their own and get their way, the Muslims are taught from very young by Islam to hate non believers, those how chose to ignore this do so at this Countries future, this is more important than any benefit scam and is minuscule compared to our Counties Future, as to your pet hate the WAG, they are not fit for purpose same as our Councillor's, they all seem to stumble from one disaster to another.... welshmen
  • Score: 3

5:25am Sun 26 Jan 14

scraptheWAG says...

Mr Angry wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
welshmen wrote:
Mr Angry you say:
" As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake,"
The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....
why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle
You have evidence do you ,? Or is it someone I know down the pub, knows someone ?
you only have to see the large number of people that are in the national media being prosecuted by the court
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: Mr Angry you say: " As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake," The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....[/p][/quote]why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle[/p][/quote]You have evidence do you ,? Or is it someone I know down the pub, knows someone ?[/p][/quote]you only have to see the large number of people that are in the national media being prosecuted by the court scraptheWAG
  • Score: -6

9:54am Sun 26 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

welshmen wrote:
gvmusroom says
"Nick Griffin can't even run a business, let alone a country" well who has run this Country successfully in the last 25 years? i wont ask you who's in charge of your lot because your all in charge are you not..

And your an Anarchist, your lot never even had a Legal British Party, they were involved in the " Tottenham Outrage", the "Houndsditch Murders", and "The Siege of Sidney Street", where Mr Winston Churchill was in attendance.

So what's the Anarchist way forward? how does that work, are you like Mr Jack Straw a fellow Communist now a Labour MP (Traitor) how do you see the solution to get our Country going again....

Other people who were made Bankrupt... Abraham Lincoln, Henry HEINZ, Donald TRUMP, Meat Loaf, Henry FORD,Peter Stringfellow, and my Footballing hero George BEST and lots more....
I would argue that the evidence quite clearly illustrates that no one has run this country successfully for - well - decades? Centuries? Depends on your outlook really.

And (sigh) no, we don't have a 'party' because anarchism is a system of inclusion and cooperation, not a system of conflict and disparity as we currently have to endure.

As for your claims fo outrages, murders and sieges - they were more than a hundred years ago - I fail to see how any of it is relevent - aside from teh fact that they were robberies that just happened to be committed by anarchists, and not political statements. If you want to go down the historic road, let's talk about Mosley shall we? No? Thought not.

As for 'our way forward' - you're obviously not averse to reading, I refuse to accept you had those moments of history buried in your memory - I suggest, if you're interested, that you read a bit more. There's PLENTY of literature out there - we have a long and storied history and a wealth of intellectual tradition - unlike the BNP of course, most of whom probably couldn't spell intellectual.
[quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: gvmusroom says "Nick Griffin can't even run a business, let alone a country" well who has run this Country successfully in the last 25 years? i wont ask you who's in charge of your lot because your all in charge are you not.. And your an Anarchist, your lot never even had a Legal British Party, they were involved in the " Tottenham Outrage", the "Houndsditch Murders", and "The Siege of Sidney Street", where Mr Winston Churchill was in attendance. So what's the Anarchist way forward? how does that work, are you like Mr Jack Straw a fellow Communist now a Labour MP (Traitor) how do you see the solution to get our Country going again.... Other people who were made Bankrupt... Abraham Lincoln, Henry HEINZ, Donald TRUMP, Meat Loaf, Henry FORD,Peter Stringfellow, and my Footballing hero George BEST and lots more....[/p][/quote]I would argue that the evidence quite clearly illustrates that no one has run this country successfully for - well - decades? Centuries? Depends on your outlook really. And (sigh) no, we don't have a 'party' because anarchism is a system of inclusion and cooperation, not a system of conflict and disparity as we currently have to endure. As for your claims fo outrages, murders and sieges - they were more than a hundred years ago - I fail to see how any of it is relevent - aside from teh fact that they were robberies that just happened to be committed by anarchists, and not political statements. If you want to go down the historic road, let's talk about Mosley shall we? No? Thought not. As for 'our way forward' - you're obviously not averse to reading, I refuse to accept you had those moments of history buried in your memory - I suggest, if you're interested, that you read a bit more. There's PLENTY of literature out there - we have a long and storied history and a wealth of intellectual tradition - unlike the BNP of course, most of whom probably couldn't spell intellectual. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -21

1:06pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
welshmen wrote:
Mr Angry you say:
" As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake,"
The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....
why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle
You have evidence do you ,? Or is it someone I know down the pub, knows someone ?
you only have to see the large number of people that are in the national media being prosecuted by the court
Myth: There is a major problem of ‘families where generations have never worked’

Reality: The academics Paul Gregg and Lindsay MacMillan looked at the Labour Force Survey, the large-scale survey of households from which we get most of our statistics about who’s in work. In households with two or more generations of working age, there were only 0.3 per cent where neither generation had ever worked. In a third of these, the member of the younger generation had been out of work for less than a year.

When they looked at longer-term data, they found that only 1 per cent of sons in the families they tracked had never worked by the time they were 29. What’s more, while sons whose fathers had experienced unemployment were more likely to be unemployed, this only applied where there were few jobs in the local labour market. So ‘inter-generationa
l worklessness’ is much more likely to be explained by a lack of jobs than a lack of a ‘work ethic’.

Myth: Most benefits spending goes to unemployed people of working age

Reality: The largest element of social security expenditure (42 per cent) goes to pensioners. Housing benefit accounts for 20 per cent per cent (and about one fifth of these claimants are in work); 15 per cent goes on children, through child benefit and child tax credit; 8 per cent on disability living allowance, which helps disabled people (both in and out of work) with extra costs; 4 per cent on employment and support allowance to those who cannot work due to sickness or disability; 4 per cent on income support, mainly for single parents, carers and some disabled people; 3 per cent on jobseeker’s allowance; and 2 per cent on carer’s allowance and maternity pay, leaving 3 per cent on other benefits.

Myth: Benefit fraud is high and increasing

Reality: The latest Department for Work and Pensions estimates show that in 2011/12 just 0.7 per cent of benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, including a 2.8 per cent fraud rate for jobseeker’s allowance and a mere 0.3 per cent for incapacity benefits. Even if we put together fraud with ‘customer error’ – people who are not entitled to benefits but not deliberately defrauding the state – the rate of false claims is 3.4 per cent for JSA and 1.2 per cent for incapacity benefit.

The claim that benefit fraud is increasing is similarly false. Because there have been changes in how fraud has been calculated over time, we have to look at combined fraud and ‘customer error’ for JSA and income support. This declined from 9.4 per cent to 4.8 per cent of spending from 1997/98 to 2004/05, and has since stayed roughly flat.

Loads of sickness benefit fraud eh 1.2 % ? of claims yeah right , and nowhere does it say they are all Labour voters. SO YOU ARE WRONG YOU PATHETIC TROLL
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: Mr Angry you say: " As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake," The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....[/p][/quote]why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle[/p][/quote]You have evidence do you ,? Or is it someone I know down the pub, knows someone ?[/p][/quote]you only have to see the large number of people that are in the national media being prosecuted by the court[/p][/quote]Myth: There is a major problem of ‘families where generations have never worked’ Reality: The academics Paul Gregg and Lindsay MacMillan looked at the Labour Force Survey, the large-scale survey of households from which we get most of our statistics about who’s in work. In households with two or more generations of working age, there were only 0.3 per cent where neither generation had ever worked. In a third of these, the member of the younger generation had been out of work for less than a year. When they looked at longer-term data, they found that only 1 per cent of sons in the families they tracked had never worked by the time they were 29. What’s more, while sons whose fathers had experienced unemployment were more likely to be unemployed, this only applied where there were few jobs in the local labour market. So ‘inter-generationa l worklessness’ is much more likely to be explained by a lack of jobs than a lack of a ‘work ethic’. Myth: Most benefits spending goes to unemployed people of working age Reality: The largest element of social security expenditure (42 per cent) goes to pensioners. Housing benefit accounts for 20 per cent per cent (and about one fifth of these claimants are in work); 15 per cent goes on children, through child benefit and child tax credit; 8 per cent on disability living allowance, which helps disabled people (both in and out of work) with extra costs; 4 per cent on employment and support allowance to those who cannot work due to sickness or disability; 4 per cent on income support, mainly for single parents, carers and some disabled people; 3 per cent on jobseeker’s allowance; and 2 per cent on carer’s allowance and maternity pay, leaving 3 per cent on other benefits. Myth: Benefit fraud is high and increasing Reality: The latest Department for Work and Pensions estimates show that in 2011/12 just 0.7 per cent of benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, including a 2.8 per cent fraud rate for jobseeker’s allowance and a mere 0.3 per cent for incapacity benefits. Even if we put together fraud with ‘customer error’ – people who are not entitled to benefits but not deliberately defrauding the state – the rate of false claims is 3.4 per cent for JSA and 1.2 per cent for incapacity benefit. The claim that benefit fraud is increasing is similarly false. Because there have been changes in how fraud has been calculated over time, we have to look at combined fraud and ‘customer error’ for JSA and income support. This declined from 9.4 per cent to 4.8 per cent of spending from 1997/98 to 2004/05, and has since stayed roughly flat. Loads of sickness benefit fraud eh 1.2 % ? of claims yeah right , and nowhere does it say they are all Labour voters. SO YOU ARE WRONG YOU PATHETIC TROLL Mr Angry
  • Score: 2

2:03pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Myth: Most people who claim disability benefits could be working

Reality: There are two main kinds of disability benefits: disability living allowance (to cover the extra costs of disability) and employment and support allowance (income replacement for those not in employment). The most basic misunderstanding is that the latter is only for people who are ‘completely incapable of work’. The welfare reformer Sidney Webb commented in 1914 – in the midst of one of many previous panics about ‘true disability’ – that the only people who could do no work at all were ‘literally unconscious or asleep’. The question is whether suitable jobs exist, and whether these people would be able to get them.

Once we understand this, three problems face us. First, just because we’re living longer doesn’t mean we’re in better health; improved medical care means that many people born with impairments or suffering traumatic injuries are able to live longer. Second, jobs are in some ways worse than in the early 1990s: people have to work harder and have less control over their job, which makes it more difficult for people with health problems to stay in work. And while we now have anti-discrimination legislation, this only forces employers to make ‘reasonable’ adjustments; the evidence not only suggests these are often limited, but that employers are less willing to employ disabled people as a result.

Finally, many of the people claiming incapacity benefits are people with low employability in areas of few jobs. These are the very employers that are less likely to make adjustments. Some people end up in a situation where they are not fit enough to do the jobs they can get, but can’t get the jobs they can do.

Completely incapable of work? Not necessarily. Penalised for their disability by a labour market that has no place for them? Definitely.
Myth: Most people who claim disability benefits could be working Reality: There are two main kinds of disability benefits: disability living allowance (to cover the extra costs of disability) and employment and support allowance (income replacement for those not in employment). The most basic misunderstanding is that the latter is only for people who are ‘completely incapable of work’. The welfare reformer Sidney Webb commented in 1914 – in the midst of one of many previous panics about ‘true disability’ – that the only people who could do no work at all were ‘literally unconscious or asleep’. The question is whether suitable jobs exist, and whether these people would be able to get them. Once we understand this, three problems face us. First, just because we’re living longer doesn’t mean we’re in better health; improved medical care means that many people born with impairments or suffering traumatic injuries are able to live longer. Second, jobs are in some ways worse than in the early 1990s: people have to work harder and have less control over their job, which makes it more difficult for people with health problems to stay in work. And while we now have anti-discrimination legislation, this only forces employers to make ‘reasonable’ adjustments; the evidence not only suggests these are often limited, but that employers are less willing to employ disabled people as a result. Finally, many of the people claiming incapacity benefits are people with low employability in areas of few jobs. These are the very employers that are less likely to make adjustments. Some people end up in a situation where they are not fit enough to do the jobs they can get, but can’t get the jobs they can do. Completely incapable of work? Not necessarily. Penalised for their disability by a labour market that has no place for them? Definitely. Mr Angry
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Sun 26 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Away with you and your facts Mr. Angry - inconvenient truths must not be accepted in this debate on benefits.
Away with you and your facts Mr. Angry - inconvenient truths must not be accepted in this debate on benefits. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -7

5:34pm Sun 26 Jan 14

scraptheWAG says...

Mr Angry wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
welshmen wrote:
Mr Angry you say:
" As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake,"
The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....
why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle
You have evidence do you ,? Or is it someone I know down the pub, knows someone ?
you only have to see the large number of people that are in the national media being prosecuted by the court
Myth: There is a major problem of ‘families where generations have never worked’

Reality: The academics Paul Gregg and Lindsay MacMillan looked at the Labour Force Survey, the large-scale survey of households from which we get most of our statistics about who’s in work. In households with two or more generations of working age, there were only 0.3 per cent where neither generation had ever worked. In a third of these, the member of the younger generation had been out of work for less than a year.

When they looked at longer-term data, they found that only 1 per cent of sons in the families they tracked had never worked by the time they were 29. What’s more, while sons whose fathers had experienced unemployment were more likely to be unemployed, this only applied where there were few jobs in the local labour market. So ‘inter-generationa

l worklessness’ is much more likely to be explained by a lack of jobs than a lack of a ‘work ethic’.

Myth: Most benefits spending goes to unemployed people of working age

Reality: The largest element of social security expenditure (42 per cent) goes to pensioners. Housing benefit accounts for 20 per cent per cent (and about one fifth of these claimants are in work); 15 per cent goes on children, through child benefit and child tax credit; 8 per cent on disability living allowance, which helps disabled people (both in and out of work) with extra costs; 4 per cent on employment and support allowance to those who cannot work due to sickness or disability; 4 per cent on income support, mainly for single parents, carers and some disabled people; 3 per cent on jobseeker’s allowance; and 2 per cent on carer’s allowance and maternity pay, leaving 3 per cent on other benefits.

Myth: Benefit fraud is high and increasing

Reality: The latest Department for Work and Pensions estimates show that in 2011/12 just 0.7 per cent of benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, including a 2.8 per cent fraud rate for jobseeker’s allowance and a mere 0.3 per cent for incapacity benefits. Even if we put together fraud with ‘customer error’ – people who are not entitled to benefits but not deliberately defrauding the state – the rate of false claims is 3.4 per cent for JSA and 1.2 per cent for incapacity benefit.

The claim that benefit fraud is increasing is similarly false. Because there have been changes in how fraud has been calculated over time, we have to look at combined fraud and ‘customer error’ for JSA and income support. This declined from 9.4 per cent to 4.8 per cent of spending from 1997/98 to 2004/05, and has since stayed roughly flat.

Loads of sickness benefit fraud eh 1.2 % ? of claims yeah right , and nowhere does it say they are all Labour voters. SO YOU ARE WRONG YOU PATHETIC TROLL
so do you believe that 20% of people that live in merthr are too ill to work that being fat is a disease or drinking too much is a illness that people are too stressed to find work The level of benefit fraud is huge for disability allowance .

http://www.thesun.co
.uk/sol/homepage/new
s/article1178294.ece
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: Mr Angry you say: " As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake," The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....[/p][/quote]why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle[/p][/quote]You have evidence do you ,? Or is it someone I know down the pub, knows someone ?[/p][/quote]you only have to see the large number of people that are in the national media being prosecuted by the court[/p][/quote]Myth: There is a major problem of ‘families where generations have never worked’ Reality: The academics Paul Gregg and Lindsay MacMillan looked at the Labour Force Survey, the large-scale survey of households from which we get most of our statistics about who’s in work. In households with two or more generations of working age, there were only 0.3 per cent where neither generation had ever worked. In a third of these, the member of the younger generation had been out of work for less than a year. When they looked at longer-term data, they found that only 1 per cent of sons in the families they tracked had never worked by the time they were 29. What’s more, while sons whose fathers had experienced unemployment were more likely to be unemployed, this only applied where there were few jobs in the local labour market. So ‘inter-generationa l worklessness’ is much more likely to be explained by a lack of jobs than a lack of a ‘work ethic’. Myth: Most benefits spending goes to unemployed people of working age Reality: The largest element of social security expenditure (42 per cent) goes to pensioners. Housing benefit accounts for 20 per cent per cent (and about one fifth of these claimants are in work); 15 per cent goes on children, through child benefit and child tax credit; 8 per cent on disability living allowance, which helps disabled people (both in and out of work) with extra costs; 4 per cent on employment and support allowance to those who cannot work due to sickness or disability; 4 per cent on income support, mainly for single parents, carers and some disabled people; 3 per cent on jobseeker’s allowance; and 2 per cent on carer’s allowance and maternity pay, leaving 3 per cent on other benefits. Myth: Benefit fraud is high and increasing Reality: The latest Department for Work and Pensions estimates show that in 2011/12 just 0.7 per cent of benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, including a 2.8 per cent fraud rate for jobseeker’s allowance and a mere 0.3 per cent for incapacity benefits. Even if we put together fraud with ‘customer error’ – people who are not entitled to benefits but not deliberately defrauding the state – the rate of false claims is 3.4 per cent for JSA and 1.2 per cent for incapacity benefit. The claim that benefit fraud is increasing is similarly false. Because there have been changes in how fraud has been calculated over time, we have to look at combined fraud and ‘customer error’ for JSA and income support. This declined from 9.4 per cent to 4.8 per cent of spending from 1997/98 to 2004/05, and has since stayed roughly flat. Loads of sickness benefit fraud eh 1.2 % ? of claims yeah right , and nowhere does it say they are all Labour voters. SO YOU ARE WRONG YOU PATHETIC TROLL[/p][/quote]so do you believe that 20% of people that live in merthr are too ill to work that being fat is a disease or drinking too much is a illness that people are too stressed to find work The level of benefit fraud is huge for disability allowance . http://www.thesun.co .uk/sol/homepage/new s/article1178294.ece scraptheWAG
  • Score: -3

5:54pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Are you saying the DWP figures are wrong, or do you belive the Sun, a publican not exactly renowned for telling the truth, just like you
Are you saying the DWP figures are wrong, or do you belive the Sun, a publican not exactly renowned for telling the truth, just like you Mr Angry
  • Score: 7

6:05pm Sun 26 Jan 14

scraptheWAG says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Are you saying the DWP figures are wrong, or do you belive the Sun, a publican not exactly renowned for telling the truth, just like you
the figures come from the DWP the sun is just reporting on it also Panorama (still on i player I believe) produced a programme on the huge abuse of the incapacity benefit fraud and they reported the same figures.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: Are you saying the DWP figures are wrong, or do you belive the Sun, a publican not exactly renowned for telling the truth, just like you[/p][/quote]the figures come from the DWP the sun is just reporting on it also Panorama (still on i player I believe) produced a programme on the huge abuse of the incapacity benefit fraud and they reported the same figures. scraptheWAG
  • Score: -5

6:20pm Sun 26 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Are you saying the DWP figures are wrong, or do you belive the Sun, a publican not exactly renowned for telling the truth, just like you
the figures come from the DWP the sun is just reporting on it also Panorama (still on i player I believe) produced a programme on the huge abuse of the incapacity benefit fraud and they reported the same figures.
Ah yes, the DWP and BBC - both stalwarts of honesty and integrity.
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: Are you saying the DWP figures are wrong, or do you belive the Sun, a publican not exactly renowned for telling the truth, just like you[/p][/quote]the figures come from the DWP the sun is just reporting on it also Panorama (still on i player I believe) produced a programme on the huge abuse of the incapacity benefit fraud and they reported the same figures.[/p][/quote]Ah yes, the DWP and BBC - both stalwarts of honesty and integrity. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -6

7:38pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

'The latest Department for Work and Pensions estimates show that in 2011/12 just 0.7 per cent of benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, including a 2.8 per cent fraud rate for jobseeker’s allowance and a mere 0.3 per cent for incapacity benefits. Even if we put together fraud with ‘customer error’ – people who are not entitled to benefits but not deliberately defrauding the state – the rate of false claims is 3.4 per cent for JSA and 1.2 per cent for incapacity benefit. '

These are the figures from the DWP 1.2 % as stated. I DONT LIE.

Your sweeping statement that all Non tory /UKIP voters a lazy Benefit Scroungers has been proved wrong and you know it. Now Sod off !
'The latest Department for Work and Pensions estimates show that in 2011/12 just 0.7 per cent of benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, including a 2.8 per cent fraud rate for jobseeker’s allowance and a mere 0.3 per cent for incapacity benefits. Even if we put together fraud with ‘customer error’ – people who are not entitled to benefits but not deliberately defrauding the state – the rate of false claims is 3.4 per cent for JSA and 1.2 per cent for incapacity benefit. ' These are the figures from the DWP 1.2 % as stated. I DONT LIE. Your sweeping statement that all Non tory /UKIP voters a lazy Benefit Scroungers has been proved wrong and you know it. Now Sod off ! Mr Angry
  • Score: 5

8:23pm Sun 26 Jan 14

scraptheWAG says...

Mr Angry wrote:
'The latest Department for Work and Pensions estimates show that in 2011/12 just 0.7 per cent of benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, including a 2.8 per cent fraud rate for jobseeker’s allowance and a mere 0.3 per cent for incapacity benefits. Even if we put together fraud with ‘customer error’ – people who are not entitled to benefits but not deliberately defrauding the state – the rate of false claims is 3.4 per cent for JSA and 1.2 per cent for incapacity benefit. '

These are the figures from the DWP 1.2 % as stated. I DONT LIE.

Your sweeping statement that all Non tory /UKIP voters a lazy Benefit Scroungers has been proved wrong and you know it. Now Sod off !
that is fraud they have detected if you believe that alcoholics, people with spots over weight people people who claim to be depressed, stressed a neighbour of mine cliames he is too depressed to work but works as a bouncer in caridff the list goes on should get incapacity benefit then yes the figure is low
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: 'The latest Department for Work and Pensions estimates show that in 2011/12 just 0.7 per cent of benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, including a 2.8 per cent fraud rate for jobseeker’s allowance and a mere 0.3 per cent for incapacity benefits. Even if we put together fraud with ‘customer error’ – people who are not entitled to benefits but not deliberately defrauding the state – the rate of false claims is 3.4 per cent for JSA and 1.2 per cent for incapacity benefit. ' These are the figures from the DWP 1.2 % as stated. I DONT LIE. Your sweeping statement that all Non tory /UKIP voters a lazy Benefit Scroungers has been proved wrong and you know it. Now Sod off ![/p][/quote]that is fraud they have detected if you believe that alcoholics, people with spots over weight people people who claim to be depressed, stressed a neighbour of mine cliames he is too depressed to work but works as a bouncer in caridff the list goes on should get incapacity benefit then yes the figure is low scraptheWAG
  • Score: -6

9:04pm Sun 26 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
'The latest Department for Work and Pensions estimates show that in 2011/12 just 0.7 per cent of benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, including a 2.8 per cent fraud rate for jobseeker’s allowance and a mere 0.3 per cent for incapacity benefits. Even if we put together fraud with ‘customer error’ – people who are not entitled to benefits but not deliberately defrauding the state – the rate of false claims is 3.4 per cent for JSA and 1.2 per cent for incapacity benefit. '

These are the figures from the DWP 1.2 % as stated. I DONT LIE.

Your sweeping statement that all Non tory /UKIP voters a lazy Benefit Scroungers has been proved wrong and you know it. Now Sod off !
that is fraud they have detected if you believe that alcoholics, people with spots over weight people people who claim to be depressed, stressed a neighbour of mine cliames he is too depressed to work but works as a bouncer in caridff the list goes on should get incapacity benefit then yes the figure is low
How many neighbours do you have? That's the umpteenth 'neighbour of mine' story I've seen you talk about.

Although actually - if he's got to live next door to you, I might just believe he's bloody miserable.
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: 'The latest Department for Work and Pensions estimates show that in 2011/12 just 0.7 per cent of benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, including a 2.8 per cent fraud rate for jobseeker’s allowance and a mere 0.3 per cent for incapacity benefits. Even if we put together fraud with ‘customer error’ – people who are not entitled to benefits but not deliberately defrauding the state – the rate of false claims is 3.4 per cent for JSA and 1.2 per cent for incapacity benefit. ' These are the figures from the DWP 1.2 % as stated. I DONT LIE. Your sweeping statement that all Non tory /UKIP voters a lazy Benefit Scroungers has been proved wrong and you know it. Now Sod off ![/p][/quote]that is fraud they have detected if you believe that alcoholics, people with spots over weight people people who claim to be depressed, stressed a neighbour of mine cliames he is too depressed to work but works as a bouncer in caridff the list goes on should get incapacity benefit then yes the figure is low[/p][/quote]How many neighbours do you have? That's the umpteenth 'neighbour of mine' story I've seen you talk about. Although actually - if he's got to live next door to you, I might just believe he's bloody miserable. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -6

9:06pm Sun 26 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

And 'fraud they've detected'?

How lucky we are, the DWP - with their witch hunt and their resources, can't find people out... but how lucky we are to have you to let us know the REAL truth hmmm?
And 'fraud they've detected'? How lucky we are, the DWP - with their witch hunt and their resources, can't find people out... but how lucky we are to have you to let us know the REAL truth hmmm? GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -6

9:51pm Sun 26 Jan 14

scraptheWAG says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
And 'fraud they've detected'?

How lucky we are, the DWP - with their witch hunt and their resources, can't find people out... but how lucky we are to have you to let us know the REAL truth hmmm?
you have been beat in the argument , there is no need to get personnel.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: And 'fraud they've detected'? How lucky we are, the DWP - with their witch hunt and their resources, can't find people out... but how lucky we are to have you to let us know the REAL truth hmmm?[/p][/quote]you have been beat in the argument , there is no need to get personnel. scraptheWAG
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Sun 26 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
And 'fraud they've detected'?

How lucky we are, the DWP - with their witch hunt and their resources, can't find people out... but how lucky we are to have you to let us know the REAL truth hmmm?
you have been beat in the argument , there is no need to get personnel.
Delusional as well as boring eh?

I don't need 'personnel' to best you, you odiferous little troll - I cqan manage quite by myself thankyou.
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: And 'fraud they've detected'? How lucky we are, the DWP - with their witch hunt and their resources, can't find people out... but how lucky we are to have you to let us know the REAL truth hmmm?[/p][/quote]you have been beat in the argument , there is no need to get personnel.[/p][/quote]Delusional as well as boring eh? I don't need 'personnel' to best you, you odiferous little troll - I cqan manage quite by myself thankyou. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -5

9:50am Mon 27 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
welshmen wrote:
Mr Angry you say:
" As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake,"
The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....
why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle
True, too many of them content to live off the efforts of others
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: Mr Angry you say: " As pensions take the largest slice of the Benefit cake," The operative being TAKE, pensioners have PUT in their money for fifty odd years, so they'er not TAKING their slice, they are just getting a slice back each week as an Old Age Wage, considering many thousands of our Pensioners fought in the WW2 for us to live our lives and have our freedom, to class what they get as a Benefit is in my opinion a bigger snub to our Old people, I know your not deliberately attacking our Pensioners but your reply seems that way....[/p][/quote]why go on about pensioners what about the huge number of people who claim to be disabled but are fit as a fiddle[/p][/quote]True, too many of them content to live off the efforts of others Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:49am Mon 27 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Do you know you are no longer classed as disabled if you can pick up an EMPTY cardboard box. That's the sort of 'reliable' questions the ATOS 'healthcare' board use to assess claimants. Now I worked in a school full of disabled young adults, and 99% could pick up an empty cardboard box so does that make them able bodied. I think not. There was a serving soldier who had both legs blown off in service and he was denied sickness benefits until he appealed. Again, this decision was made by ATOS. A huge amount of people who are denied sickness benefit have them reinstated by the court of appeal, at great cost to the government and a great deal of heartache for the disabled person. Lets hope that you, Scrap the Wag, Or You, Dr Martin! never have to go through the process.
Do you know you are no longer classed as disabled if you can pick up an EMPTY cardboard box. That's the sort of 'reliable' questions the ATOS 'healthcare' board use to assess claimants. Now I worked in a school full of disabled young adults, and 99% could pick up an empty cardboard box so does that make them able bodied. I think not. There was a serving soldier who had both legs blown off in service and he was denied sickness benefits until he appealed. Again, this decision was made by ATOS. A huge amount of people who are denied sickness benefit have them reinstated by the court of appeal, at great cost to the government and a great deal of heartache for the disabled person. Lets hope that you, Scrap the Wag, Or You, Dr Martin! never have to go through the process. endthelies
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

Million sickness benefit applicants 'fit for work'

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-politics-25
886638
Million sickness benefit applicants 'fit for work' http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-politics-25 886638 Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

1:16pm Mon 27 Jan 14

welshmen says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
And 'fraud they've detected'?

How lucky we are, the DWP - with their witch hunt and their resources, can't find people out... but how lucky we are to have you to let us know the REAL truth hmmm?
you have been beat in the argument , there is no need to get personnel.
Delusional as well as boring eh?

I don't need 'personnel' to best you, you odiferous little troll - I cqan manage quite by myself thankyou.
GVMushroom:

And what is your party called? what are your parties policies? who's your leader ? whoops, you don't have one do you, perhaps your all telepathic, enlighten us to your aims', If the British National Party wasn't a British legal political Party it wouldn't have two MEP's, the BNP have had a bad history, I agree, but they haven't killed anyone like many other parties, but they have moved on has your's?.

Your odiferous, is spelt odoriferous, and cqan is spelt can, it's not wise to attack people over how to spell intellectual, just makes you look with respect " stupid", just try and stick to policies to make our Country Great again....
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: And 'fraud they've detected'? How lucky we are, the DWP - with their witch hunt and their resources, can't find people out... but how lucky we are to have you to let us know the REAL truth hmmm?[/p][/quote]you have been beat in the argument , there is no need to get personnel.[/p][/quote]Delusional as well as boring eh? I don't need 'personnel' to best you, you odiferous little troll - I cqan manage quite by myself thankyou.[/p][/quote]GVMushroom: And what is your party called? what are your parties policies? who's your leader ? whoops, you don't have one do you, perhaps your all telepathic, enlighten us to your aims', If the British National Party wasn't a British legal political Party it wouldn't have two MEP's, the BNP have had a bad history, I agree, but they haven't killed anyone like many other parties, but they have moved on has your's?. Your odiferous, is spelt odoriferous, and cqan is spelt can, it's not wise to attack people over how to spell intellectual, just makes you look with respect " stupid", just try and stick to policies to make our Country Great again.... welshmen
  • Score: 6

1:57pm Mon 27 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

welshmen wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo



m
wrote:
And 'fraud they've detected'?

How lucky we are, the DWP - with their witch hunt and their resources, can't find people out... but how lucky we are to have you to let us know the REAL truth hmmm?
you have been beat in the argument , there is no need to get personnel.
Delusional as well as boring eh?

I don't need 'personnel' to best you, you odiferous little troll - I cqan manage quite by myself thankyou.
GVMushroom:

And what is your party called? what are your parties policies? who's your leader ? whoops, you don't have one do you, perhaps your all telepathic, enlighten us to your aims', If the British National Party wasn't a British legal political Party it wouldn't have two MEP's, the BNP have had a bad history, I agree, but they haven't killed anyone like many other parties, but they have moved on has your's?.

Your odiferous, is spelt odoriferous, and cqan is spelt can, it's not wise to attack people over how to spell intellectual, just makes you look with respect " stupid", just try and stick to policies to make our Country Great again....
Once again - we don't have any party. We are a grassroots movement that advocates people make their own decisions instead of electing some unnacountable, corruptable politico to do it for them. I'm sorry you find this such a hard concept to grasp.

Maybe the BNP haven't killed anyone...yet... Nick Griffin however was recently in the news for reaching out to parties like the Golden Dawn in Greece, who most definitely have.

Odiferous is an accepted variation of odoriferous - as a simple search of any dictionary will inform you.

As for the cqan - I have big fingers and type fast - sometimes I hit two keys at once, and don't check before I post...
[quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: And 'fraud they've detected'? How lucky we are, the DWP - with their witch hunt and their resources, can't find people out... but how lucky we are to have you to let us know the REAL truth hmmm?[/p][/quote]you have been beat in the argument , there is no need to get personnel.[/p][/quote]Delusional as well as boring eh? I don't need 'personnel' to best you, you odiferous little troll - I cqan manage quite by myself thankyou.[/p][/quote]GVMushroom: And what is your party called? what are your parties policies? who's your leader ? whoops, you don't have one do you, perhaps your all telepathic, enlighten us to your aims', If the British National Party wasn't a British legal political Party it wouldn't have two MEP's, the BNP have had a bad history, I agree, but they haven't killed anyone like many other parties, but they have moved on has your's?. Your odiferous, is spelt odoriferous, and cqan is spelt can, it's not wise to attack people over how to spell intellectual, just makes you look with respect " stupid", just try and stick to policies to make our Country Great again....[/p][/quote]Once again - we don't have any party. We are a grassroots movement that advocates people make their own decisions instead of electing some unnacountable, corruptable politico to do it for them. I'm sorry you find this such a hard concept to grasp. Maybe the BNP haven't killed anyone...yet... Nick Griffin however was recently in the news for reaching out to parties like the Golden Dawn in Greece, who most definitely have. Odiferous is an accepted variation of odoriferous - as a simple search of any dictionary will inform you. As for the cqan - I have big fingers and type fast - sometimes I hit two keys at once, and don't check before I post... GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -6

2:12pm Mon 27 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
Million sickness benefit applicants 'fit for work'

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-politics-25

886638
and how many were found unfit after appealing the decision at tribunal. They've omitted that from the report haven't they? How many have died after being declared fit for work by atos. over a thousand! That's ok with you is it DR. Do me a favour and read this link and then tell me that what the government and Atos is doing is a fair system
. http://www.huffingto
npost.co.uk/2013/05/
28/linda-wootton-die
s-after-being-judged
-fit-for-work_n_3346
582.html
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: Million sickness benefit applicants 'fit for work' http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-politics-25 886638[/p][/quote]and how many were found unfit after appealing the decision at tribunal. They've omitted that from the report haven't they? How many have died after being declared fit for work by atos. over a thousand! That's ok with you is it DR. Do me a favour and read this link and then tell me that what the government and Atos is doing is a fair system . http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2013/05/ 28/linda-wootton-die s-after-being-judged -fit-for-work_n_3346 582.html endthelies
  • Score: -2

2:20pm Mon 27 Jan 14

endthelies says...

I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all .
https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/223012
/esa_ibr_jan13.pdf
I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all . https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223012 /esa_ibr_jan13.pdf endthelies
  • Score: -2

4:38pm Mon 27 Jan 14

welshmen says...

GVMusroom says:
"As for the cqan - I have big fingers and type fast - sometimes I hit two keys at once, and don't check before I post.". You want to take your chubby fingers down the Gym.

Looking up Anarchist, I found a description of you.

Anarchist:

1/ a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.

2/ a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and Government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in place of that destroyed.

3/ a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any establishment rule, law, or custom.

What you stand for GVMushroom in comparison, makes the British National Party look like the WI....
GVMusroom says: "As for the cqan - I have big fingers and type fast - sometimes I hit two keys at once, and don't check before I post.". You want to take your chubby fingers down the Gym. Looking up Anarchist, I found a description of you. Anarchist: 1/ a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism. 2/ a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and Government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in place of that destroyed. 3/ a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any establishment rule, law, or custom. What you stand for GVMushroom in comparison, makes the British National Party look like the WI.... welshmen
  • Score: 5

8:08pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Mervyn James says...

endthelies wrote:
I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all .
https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/uploads/sy

stem/uploads/attachm

ent_data/file/223012

/esa_ibr_jan13.pdf
How, can the DWP assess a woman who is both deaf and blind, as needing no support ? Kill 3,000 with a serious illness by forcing them to do tests that go beyond their, physical and mental limits ? but that is exactly what they are doing. Wrong assessment seems to be going in the DWP's favor, driven by threats and intimidation that affect those with the most need, not the least. As you suggest, 68% of testing is wrong, so why cannot they see what is obvious to them ? Maybe using off the dole amateurs of 17 to conduct medical tests, has something to do with it...
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all . https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223012 /esa_ibr_jan13.pdf[/p][/quote]How, can the DWP assess a woman who is both deaf and blind, as needing no support ? Kill 3,000 with a serious illness by forcing them to do tests that go beyond their, physical and mental limits ? but that is exactly what they are doing. Wrong assessment seems to be going in the DWP's favor, driven by threats and intimidation that affect those with the most need, not the least. As you suggest, 68% of testing is wrong, so why cannot they see what is obvious to them ? Maybe using off the dole amateurs of 17 to conduct medical tests, has something to do with it... Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

8:50am Tue 28 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

welshmen wrote:
GVMusroom says:
"As for the cqan - I have big fingers and type fast - sometimes I hit two keys at once, and don't check before I post.". You want to take your chubby fingers down the Gym.

Looking up Anarchist, I found a description of you.

Anarchist:

1/ a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.

2/ a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and Government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in place of that destroyed.

3/ a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any establishment rule, law, or custom.

What you stand for GVMushroom in comparison, makes the British National Party look like the WI....
Don't need the gym, have big fingers 'cos I'm a big fella with hands like shovels, not because I'm fat.

Your definition is also pretty inaccurate. I think as a bare minimum definition, the wikipedia entry offers the most concise in terms of a summary - though even that probably raises more questions than it answers - it's quite a complex philosophy that pulls together a lot of different strands around a small number of common, core beliefs.

Wiki says:
Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, some argue that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is often considered a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.

Anarchism as a mass social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents and individualists have also participated in large anarchist organizations. Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism), while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.
[quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: GVMusroom says: "As for the cqan - I have big fingers and type fast - sometimes I hit two keys at once, and don't check before I post.". You want to take your chubby fingers down the Gym. Looking up Anarchist, I found a description of you. Anarchist: 1/ a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism. 2/ a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and Government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in place of that destroyed. 3/ a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any establishment rule, law, or custom. What you stand for GVMushroom in comparison, makes the British National Party look like the WI....[/p][/quote]Don't need the gym, have big fingers 'cos I'm a big fella with hands like shovels, not because I'm fat. Your definition is also pretty inaccurate. I think as a bare minimum definition, the wikipedia entry offers the most concise in terms of a summary - though even that probably raises more questions than it answers - it's quite a complex philosophy that pulls together a lot of different strands around a small number of common, core beliefs. Wiki says: [quote]Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions,[1][2][3][4] but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.[5][6][7][8] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central, some argue[11] that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.[6][12][13][14][15][16][17] As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.[18] There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[19] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[10] Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[20][21] Anarchism is often considered a radical left-wing ideology,[22][23] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.[24] Anarchism as a mass social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon[25] which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents[26] and individualists have also participated in large anarchist organizations.[27][28] Many anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),[29][30] while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.[31][/quote] GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -5

9:03am Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Mervyn James wrote:
endthelies wrote:
I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all .
https://www.gov.uk/g


overnment/uploads/sy


stem/uploads/attachm


ent_data/file/223012


/esa_ibr_jan13.pdf
How, can the DWP assess a woman who is both deaf and blind, as needing no support ? Kill 3,000 with a serious illness by forcing them to do tests that go beyond their, physical and mental limits ? but that is exactly what they are doing. Wrong assessment seems to be going in the DWP's favor, driven by threats and intimidation that affect those with the most need, not the least. As you suggest, 68% of testing is wrong, so why cannot they see what is obvious to them ? Maybe using off the dole amateurs of 17 to conduct medical tests, has something to do with it...
Couldn't agree with you more Mervyn. What this government and Atos are doing to the disabled is sickening.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all . https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223012 /esa_ibr_jan13.pdf[/p][/quote]How, can the DWP assess a woman who is both deaf and blind, as needing no support ? Kill 3,000 with a serious illness by forcing them to do tests that go beyond their, physical and mental limits ? but that is exactly what they are doing. Wrong assessment seems to be going in the DWP's favor, driven by threats and intimidation that affect those with the most need, not the least. As you suggest, 68% of testing is wrong, so why cannot they see what is obvious to them ? Maybe using off the dole amateurs of 17 to conduct medical tests, has something to do with it...[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree with you more Mervyn. What this government and Atos are doing to the disabled is sickening. endthelies
  • Score: -3

9:14am Tue 28 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
Million sickness benefit applicants 'fit for work'

http://www.bbc.co.uk


/news/uk-politics-25


886638
and how many were found unfit after appealing the decision at tribunal. They've omitted that from the report haven't they? How many have died after being declared fit for work by atos. over a thousand! That's ok with you is it DR. Do me a favour and read this link and then tell me that what the government and Atos is doing is a fair system
. http://www.huffingto

npost.co.uk/2013/05/

28/linda-wootton-die

s-after-being-judged

-fit-for-work_n_3346

582.html
Not a Doctor, although an NHS employee who sees a fair few quite content to pick up their extortionate amount of money whilst their basic needs of a bed/ meals and electric are taken care of, £100-£200 money they get is spending money most likely to splash out on their poison of choice (usually illicit)
These people do not care quite happy to live off the state with no inclination whatsoever to even try to support themselves, thousands of them, quite content to hid behind the facade of "I am mentally ill" I am too unwell to work as they go and find their local drug dealer for their drug of choice
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: Million sickness benefit applicants 'fit for work' http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-politics-25 886638[/p][/quote]and how many were found unfit after appealing the decision at tribunal. They've omitted that from the report haven't they? How many have died after being declared fit for work by atos. over a thousand! That's ok with you is it DR. Do me a favour and read this link and then tell me that what the government and Atos is doing is a fair system . http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2013/05/ 28/linda-wootton-die s-after-being-judged -fit-for-work_n_3346 582.html[/p][/quote]Not a Doctor, although an NHS employee who sees a fair few quite content to pick up their extortionate amount of money whilst their basic needs of a bed/ meals and electric are taken care of, £100-£200 money they get is spending money most likely to splash out on their poison of choice (usually illicit) These people do not care quite happy to live off the state with no inclination whatsoever to even try to support themselves, thousands of them, quite content to hid behind the facade of "I am mentally ill" I am too unwell to work as they go and find their local drug dealer for their drug of choice Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

9:48am Tue 28 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

endthelies wrote:
I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all .
https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/uploads/sy

stem/uploads/attachm

ent_data/file/223012

/esa_ibr_jan13.pdf
Whilst I do not know why so many people are successfully overturning their original decisions, but I would guess mental illness, there are many people (see previous post) who are quite content to use their mental illness as an excuse for not being able to work(ATOS psychiatrist says you can work, patient then bleats to his own consultant psychiatrist and then gets the original decision overturned) as you know mental illness is not an exact science (a reason exploited by many a pro pot commentator).

Why pick just Jan 2013 figures?,April 2013 ( successfully overturned 52%), July 2013 (53%) Oct (58%) Jan 2014 (61%), much as I would like ATOS get it right every time , at the end of the day two conclusions can be made
1 All those who were entitled to their benefits will continue to get their benefits
2 All those who were not entitled to any wont get any
I haven't got an issue with those two statements and I am sure most people in this country would agree with me.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all . https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223012 /esa_ibr_jan13.pdf[/p][/quote]Whilst I do not know why so many people are successfully overturning their original decisions, but I would guess mental illness, there are many people (see previous post) who are quite content to use their mental illness as an excuse for not being able to work(ATOS psychiatrist says you can work, patient then bleats to his own consultant psychiatrist and then gets the original decision overturned) as you know mental illness is not an exact science (a reason exploited by many a pro pot commentator). Why pick just Jan 2013 figures?,April 2013 ( successfully overturned 52%), July 2013 (53%) Oct (58%) Jan 2014 (61%), much as I would like ATOS get it right every time , at the end of the day two conclusions can be made 1 All those who were entitled to their benefits will continue to get their benefits 2 All those who were not entitled to any wont get any I haven't got an issue with those two statements and I am sure most people in this country would agree with me. Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:24am Tue 28 Jan 14

welshmen says...

GVMushroom: after looking at your last reply, just to sum up in one word what you are, is a TRAITOR to the British People, don't want any more com's with you, go and bother someone else....
GVMushroom: after looking at your last reply, just to sum up in one word what you are, is a TRAITOR to the British People, don't want any more com's with you, go and bother someone else.... welshmen
  • Score: 5

10:28am Tue 28 Jan 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

I agree with many of the points in the original post, though I dont think it's an entirely a Labour party problem. Remember we had a Conservative/Liberal council in Newport and they were as bad as the current council. The best MPs, AMs and councils are the marginal ones where the candidates have to work hard to retain their position. To that extent I agree people shouldnt blindly vote for a party but look at the candidate and what they can/do offer. The WAG has done absolutely nothing for Newport yet Griffiths and Butler actually increased their majority in the last WAG election - that is so frustrating.
I agree with many of the points in the original post, though I dont think it's an entirely a Labour party problem. Remember we had a Conservative/Liberal council in Newport and they were as bad as the current council. The best MPs, AMs and councils are the marginal ones where the candidates have to work hard to retain their position. To that extent I agree people shouldnt blindly vote for a party but look at the candidate and what they can/do offer. The WAG has done absolutely nothing for Newport yet Griffiths and Butler actually increased their majority in the last WAG election - that is so frustrating. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: 1

12:07pm Tue 28 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all .
https://www.gov.uk/g


overnment/uploads/sy


stem/uploads/attachm


ent_data/file/223012


/esa_ibr_jan13.pdf
Whilst I do not know why so many people are successfully overturning their original decisions, but I would guess mental illness, there are many people (see previous post) who are quite content to use their mental illness as an excuse for not being able to work(ATOS psychiatrist says you can work, patient then bleats to his own consultant psychiatrist and then gets the original decision overturned) as you know mental illness is not an exact science (a reason exploited by many a pro pot commentator).

Why pick just Jan 2013 figures?,April 2013 ( successfully overturned 52%), July 2013 (53%) Oct (58%) Jan 2014 (61%), much as I would like ATOS get it right every time , at the end of the day two conclusions can be made
1 All those who were entitled to their benefits will continue to get their benefits
2 All those who were not entitled to any wont get any
I haven't got an issue with those two statements and I am sure most people in this country would agree with me.
Seems to me then, that if ATOS managed to get it right at least half the time, they'd waste a lot less money, and cause a lot less uneccessary aggravation and disruption. Surely even if you support their aims, that level of incompetence ought to be questioned?

And to welshmen - I'm loyal to what I choose to be loyal to. I'm no traitor to anyone, except maybe to those who are under the mistaken opinion that I don't get to choose my loyalties myself.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all . https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223012 /esa_ibr_jan13.pdf[/p][/quote]Whilst I do not know why so many people are successfully overturning their original decisions, but I would guess mental illness, there are many people (see previous post) who are quite content to use their mental illness as an excuse for not being able to work(ATOS psychiatrist says you can work, patient then bleats to his own consultant psychiatrist and then gets the original decision overturned) as you know mental illness is not an exact science (a reason exploited by many a pro pot commentator). Why pick just Jan 2013 figures?,April 2013 ( successfully overturned 52%), July 2013 (53%) Oct (58%) Jan 2014 (61%), much as I would like ATOS get it right every time , at the end of the day two conclusions can be made 1 All those who were entitled to their benefits will continue to get their benefits 2 All those who were not entitled to any wont get any I haven't got an issue with those two statements and I am sure most people in this country would agree with me.[/p][/quote]Seems to me then, that if ATOS managed to get it right at least half the time, they'd waste a lot less money, and cause a lot less uneccessary aggravation and disruption. Surely even if you support their aims, that level of incompetence ought to be questioned? And to welshmen - I'm loyal to what I choose to be loyal to. I'm no traitor to anyone, except maybe to those who are under the mistaken opinion that I don't get to choose my loyalties myself. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -5

12:15pm Tue 28 Jan 14

county mad says...

endthelies wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
endthelies wrote:
I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all .
https://www.gov.uk/g



overnment/uploads/sy



stem/uploads/attachm



ent_data/file/223012



/esa_ibr_jan13.pdf
How, can the DWP assess a woman who is both deaf and blind, as needing no support ? Kill 3,000 with a serious illness by forcing them to do tests that go beyond their, physical and mental limits ? but that is exactly what they are doing. Wrong assessment seems to be going in the DWP's favor, driven by threats and intimidation that affect those with the most need, not the least. As you suggest, 68% of testing is wrong, so why cannot they see what is obvious to them ? Maybe using off the dole amateurs of 17 to conduct medical tests, has something to do with it...
Couldn't agree with you more Mervyn. What this government and Atos are doing to the disabled is sickening.
Of course its this govt with you two labour troll ATOS were given the contract to assess the claiments by Andy Burnham LABOUR health secretary OOOPPS thats blown that arguement
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all . https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223012 /esa_ibr_jan13.pdf[/p][/quote]How, can the DWP assess a woman who is both deaf and blind, as needing no support ? Kill 3,000 with a serious illness by forcing them to do tests that go beyond their, physical and mental limits ? but that is exactly what they are doing. Wrong assessment seems to be going in the DWP's favor, driven by threats and intimidation that affect those with the most need, not the least. As you suggest, 68% of testing is wrong, so why cannot they see what is obvious to them ? Maybe using off the dole amateurs of 17 to conduct medical tests, has something to do with it...[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree with you more Mervyn. What this government and Atos are doing to the disabled is sickening.[/p][/quote]Of course its this govt with you two labour troll ATOS were given the contract to assess the claiments by Andy Burnham LABOUR health secretary OOOPPS thats blown that arguement county mad
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

@ GardenVarietyMushroo
m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
@ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Tue 28 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo

m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
Alright then - that level of 'interpretation' as you so euphamistically called it, needs to be adressed.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]Alright then - that level of 'interpretation' as you so euphamistically called it, needs to be adressed. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -5

2:50pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo

m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't. endthelies
  • Score: -1

2:55pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

county mad wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
endthelies wrote:
I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all .
https://www.gov.uk/g




overnment/uploads/sy




stem/uploads/attachm




ent_data/file/223012




/esa_ibr_jan13.pdf
How, can the DWP assess a woman who is both deaf and blind, as needing no support ? Kill 3,000 with a serious illness by forcing them to do tests that go beyond their, physical and mental limits ? but that is exactly what they are doing. Wrong assessment seems to be going in the DWP's favor, driven by threats and intimidation that affect those with the most need, not the least. As you suggest, 68% of testing is wrong, so why cannot they see what is obvious to them ? Maybe using off the dole amateurs of 17 to conduct medical tests, has something to do with it...
Couldn't agree with you more Mervyn. What this government and Atos are doing to the disabled is sickening.
Of course its this govt with you two labour troll ATOS were given the contract to assess the claiments by Andy Burnham LABOUR health secretary OOOPPS thats blown that arguement
I'm not a troll in any way shape or form. I'm not abusive or rude unless someone does it to me first!. You assume I'm a labour supporter County Mad, but I have to say, Labour did put in Atos and then the conservatives made it even harder for people to get the disability benefits they deserve by making the questionnaire that has to be filled out by the charlatans at Atos more suitable for striking people off benefit than to help them get what they are entitled to. I don't appreciate being called a troll. A sensible, non abusive discussion is not trolling. Look it up please.
[quote][p][bold]county mad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all . https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223012 /esa_ibr_jan13.pdf[/p][/quote]How, can the DWP assess a woman who is both deaf and blind, as needing no support ? Kill 3,000 with a serious illness by forcing them to do tests that go beyond their, physical and mental limits ? but that is exactly what they are doing. Wrong assessment seems to be going in the DWP's favor, driven by threats and intimidation that affect those with the most need, not the least. As you suggest, 68% of testing is wrong, so why cannot they see what is obvious to them ? Maybe using off the dole amateurs of 17 to conduct medical tests, has something to do with it...[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree with you more Mervyn. What this government and Atos are doing to the disabled is sickening.[/p][/quote]Of course its this govt with you two labour troll ATOS were given the contract to assess the claiments by Andy Burnham LABOUR health secretary OOOPPS thats blown that arguement[/p][/quote]I'm not a troll in any way shape or form. I'm not abusive or rude unless someone does it to me first!. You assume I'm a labour supporter County Mad, but I have to say, Labour did put in Atos and then the conservatives made it even harder for people to get the disability benefits they deserve by making the questionnaire that has to be filled out by the charlatans at Atos more suitable for striking people off benefit than to help them get what they are entitled to. I don't appreciate being called a troll. A sensible, non abusive discussion is not trolling. Look it up please. endthelies
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo


m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo



m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured. endthelies
  • Score: -1

4:20pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

P.s How come Atos health practitioners (some are not even doctors) can override consultants and G.P reports. People who may have known the patient for years and not just, as is Atos, a half hour interview.
P.s How come Atos health practitioners (some are not even doctors) can override consultants and G.P reports. People who may have known the patient for years and not just, as is Atos, a half hour interview. endthelies
  • Score: -1

4:24pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo



m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
Also, I'm sure he wouldn't have applied for benefit unless he felt he needed them, so therefore, I would think, to be denied is an insult and degrading to the person who has to ask for that extra support.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]Also, I'm sure he wouldn't have applied for benefit unless he felt he needed them, so therefore, I would think, to be denied is an insult and degrading to the person who has to ask for that extra support. endthelies
  • Score: -1

6:14pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

endthelies wrote:
P.s How come Atos health practitioners (some are not even doctors) can override consultants and G.P reports. People who may have known the patient for years and not just, as is Atos, a half hour interview.
Don't dismiss practitioners (nurses) and are specialists in their field.
as opposed to a "jack of all trades" (G.P)
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: P.s How come Atos health practitioners (some are not even doctors) can override consultants and G.P reports. People who may have known the patient for years and not just, as is Atos, a half hour interview.[/p][/quote]Don't dismiss practitioners (nurses) and are specialists in their field. as opposed to a "jack of all trades" (G.P) Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

6:28pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
P.s How come Atos health practitioners (some are not even doctors) can override consultants and G.P reports. People who may have known the patient for years and not just, as is Atos, a half hour interview.
Don't dismiss practitioners (nurses) and are specialists in their field.
as opposed to a "jack of all trades" (G.P)
But their not on the same level as a consultant who has treated a patient for, sometimes, years. Sorry, but that's a fact. If they were qualified Doctors, they wouldn't be working as nurses! I have a diploma in education, but I'm not a Teacher, and I would not expect to be classed as one. I do have lots of experience with disability though, and mental disability as you put it comes in all shapes and sizes. From autism to depression, sometimes these conditions go hand in hand with a physical disability too. Each case should be judged on input from professionals who have treated that patient and know their history. Not on an half hour 'discussion' and a 15 minute physical.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: P.s How come Atos health practitioners (some are not even doctors) can override consultants and G.P reports. People who may have known the patient for years and not just, as is Atos, a half hour interview.[/p][/quote]Don't dismiss practitioners (nurses) and are specialists in their field. as opposed to a "jack of all trades" (G.P)[/p][/quote]But their not on the same level as a consultant who has treated a patient for, sometimes, years. Sorry, but that's a fact. If they were qualified Doctors, they wouldn't be working as nurses! I have a diploma in education, but I'm not a Teacher, and I would not expect to be classed as one. I do have lots of experience with disability though, and mental disability as you put it comes in all shapes and sizes. From autism to depression, sometimes these conditions go hand in hand with a physical disability too. Each case should be judged on input from professionals who have treated that patient and know their history. Not on an half hour 'discussion' and a 15 minute physical. endthelies
  • Score: -1

6:34pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo




m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
Also, I'm sure he wouldn't have applied for benefit unless he felt he needed them, so therefore, I would think, to be denied is an insult and degrading to the person who has to ask for that extra support.
I am sure there are a lot of us who would like a bit of extra support when we have asked for it and have taken it on the chin when we have been denied
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]Also, I'm sure he wouldn't have applied for benefit unless he felt he needed them, so therefore, I would think, to be denied is an insult and degrading to the person who has to ask for that extra support.[/p][/quote]I am sure there are a lot of us who would like a bit of extra support when we have asked for it and have taken it on the chin when we have been denied Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

6:35pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
P.s How come Atos health practitioners (some are not even doctors) can override consultants and G.P reports. People who may have known the patient for years and not just, as is Atos, a half hour interview.
Don't dismiss practitioners (nurses) and are specialists in their field.
as opposed to a "jack of all trades" (G.P)
I also didn't dismiss nurses. I simply asked how their 'opinion' can override a consultants report who has treated that patient for a long period of time. Can you answer that please and not try and deflect the discussion.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: P.s How come Atos health practitioners (some are not even doctors) can override consultants and G.P reports. People who may have known the patient for years and not just, as is Atos, a half hour interview.[/p][/quote]Don't dismiss practitioners (nurses) and are specialists in their field. as opposed to a "jack of all trades" (G.P)[/p][/quote]I also didn't dismiss nurses. I simply asked how their 'opinion' can override a consultants report who has treated that patient for a long period of time. Can you answer that please and not try and deflect the discussion. endthelies
  • Score: -1

6:37pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo




m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.
Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.[/p][/quote]Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link? Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo





m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
Also, I'm sure he wouldn't have applied for benefit unless he felt he needed them, so therefore, I would think, to be denied is an insult and degrading to the person who has to ask for that extra support.
I am sure there are a lot of us who would like a bit of extra support when we have asked for it and have taken it on the chin when we have been denied
You are truly unbelievable. Please read back what you've written and tell me you believe that people with serious disabilities should 'take it on the chin' when they are denied benefits which, by the benefit sections own criteria, they should be entitled. I said it before and I'll say it again. Lets hope it never happens to you. That you lose your ability to work and lose your livelihood in the process.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]Also, I'm sure he wouldn't have applied for benefit unless he felt he needed them, so therefore, I would think, to be denied is an insult and degrading to the person who has to ask for that extra support.[/p][/quote]I am sure there are a lot of us who would like a bit of extra support when we have asked for it and have taken it on the chin when we have been denied[/p][/quote]You are truly unbelievable. Please read back what you've written and tell me you believe that people with serious disabilities should 'take it on the chin' when they are denied benefits which, by the benefit sections own criteria, they should be entitled. I said it before and I'll say it again. Lets hope it never happens to you. That you lose your ability to work and lose your livelihood in the process. endthelies
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo





m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.
Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?
Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries.
http://www.thebolton
news.co.uk/news/9949
228.Soldier_loses_le
g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla
st___but_told_he_can
not_claim_benefits/
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.[/p][/quote]Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?[/p][/quote]Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries. http://www.thebolton news.co.uk/news/9949 228.Soldier_loses_le g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla st___but_told_he_can not_claim_benefits/ endthelies
  • Score: 0

6:50pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

And here's some others who, in your opinion, may have been putting it n and assessed correctly by Atos.
http://politicalscra
pbook.net/2012/11/di
sabled-man-dies-afte
r-atos-stops-benefit
s-chris-grayling/
http://www.huffingto
npost.co.uk/2013/05/
28/linda-wootton-die
s-after-being-judged
-fit-for-work_n_3346
582.html
http://www.mirror.co
.uk/news/uk-news/ben
efit-cuts-blind-man-
committed-2965375
http:/diaryofabenefi
tscrounger.blogspot.
co.uk/2011/05/3-clai
mants-die-after-bein
g-found-fit.html
http://www.stourbrid
genews.co.uk/news/10
892787.Disabled_Kinv
er_man_killed_himsel
f_after_being_left__
almost_destitute__wh
en_his_state_benefit
s_were_axed/?ref=twt
rec
And here's some others who, in your opinion, may have been putting it n and assessed correctly by Atos. http://politicalscra pbook.net/2012/11/di sabled-man-dies-afte r-atos-stops-benefit s-chris-grayling/ http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2013/05/ 28/linda-wootton-die s-after-being-judged -fit-for-work_n_3346 582.html http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/ben efit-cuts-blind-man- committed-2965375 http:/diaryofabenefi tscrounger.blogspot. co.uk/2011/05/3-clai mants-die-after-bein g-found-fit.html http://www.stourbrid genews.co.uk/news/10 892787.Disabled_Kinv er_man_killed_himsel f_after_being_left__ almost_destitute__wh en_his_state_benefit s_were_axed/?ref=twt rec endthelies
  • Score: 0

6:50pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo






m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.
Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?
Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries.
http://www.thebolton

news.co.uk/news/9949

228.Soldier_loses_le

g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla

st___but_told_he_can

not_claim_benefits/
Right...now read this
http://www.leighrepo
rter.co.uk/news/loca
l/aaron-wins-claim-1
-5056269

He won a case a few weeks later
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.[/p][/quote]Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?[/p][/quote]Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries. http://www.thebolton news.co.uk/news/9949 228.Soldier_loses_le g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla st___but_told_he_can not_claim_benefits/[/p][/quote]Right...now read this http://www.leighrepo rter.co.uk/news/loca l/aaron-wins-claim-1 -5056269 He won a case a few weeks later Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

6:52pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

endthelies wrote:
And here's some others who, in your opinion, may have been putting it n and assessed correctly by Atos.
http://politicalscra

pbook.net/2012/11/di

sabled-man-dies-afte

r-atos-stops-benefit

s-chris-grayling/
http://www.huffingto

npost.co.uk/2013/05/

28/linda-wootton-die

s-after-being-judged

-fit-for-work_n_3346

582.html
http://www.mirror.co

.uk/news/uk-news/ben

efit-cuts-blind-man-

committed-2965375
http:/diaryofabenefi

tscrounger.blogspot.

co.uk/2011/05/3-clai

mants-die-after-bein

g-found-fit.html
http://www.stourbrid

genews.co.uk/news/10

892787.Disabled_Kinv

er_man_killed_himsel

f_after_being_left__

almost_destitute__wh

en_his_state_benefit

s_were_axed/?ref=twt

rec
Maybe this will serve to enlighten you in to what this government are actually putting people through. Sorry but this subject is very close to my heart.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: And here's some others who, in your opinion, may have been putting it n and assessed correctly by Atos. http://politicalscra pbook.net/2012/11/di sabled-man-dies-afte r-atos-stops-benefit s-chris-grayling/ http://www.huffingto npost.co.uk/2013/05/ 28/linda-wootton-die s-after-being-judged -fit-for-work_n_3346 582.html http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/ben efit-cuts-blind-man- committed-2965375 http:/diaryofabenefi tscrounger.blogspot. co.uk/2011/05/3-clai mants-die-after-bein g-found-fit.html http://www.stourbrid genews.co.uk/news/10 892787.Disabled_Kinv er_man_killed_himsel f_after_being_left__ almost_destitute__wh en_his_state_benefit s_were_axed/?ref=twt rec[/p][/quote]Maybe this will serve to enlighten you in to what this government are actually putting people through. Sorry but this subject is very close to my heart. endthelies
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo







m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.
Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?
Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries.
http://www.thebolton


news.co.uk/news/9949


228.Soldier_loses_le


g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla


st___but_told_he_can


not_claim_benefits/
Right...now read this
http://www.leighrepo

rter.co.uk/news/loca

l/aaron-wins-claim-1

-5056269

He won a case a few weeks later
He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.[/p][/quote]Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?[/p][/quote]Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries. http://www.thebolton news.co.uk/news/9949 228.Soldier_loses_le g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla st___but_told_he_can not_claim_benefits/[/p][/quote]Right...now read this http://www.leighrepo rter.co.uk/news/loca l/aaron-wins-claim-1 -5056269 He won a case a few weeks later[/p][/quote]He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point! endthelies
  • Score: 0

7:04pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo






m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
Also, I'm sure he wouldn't have applied for benefit unless he felt he needed them, so therefore, I would think, to be denied is an insult and degrading to the person who has to ask for that extra support.
I am sure there are a lot of us who would like a bit of extra support when we have asked for it and have taken it on the chin when we have been denied
You are truly unbelievable. Please read back what you've written and tell me you believe that people with serious disabilities should 'take it on the chin' when they are denied benefits which, by the benefit sections own criteria, they should be entitled. I said it before and I'll say it again. Lets hope it never happens to you. That you lose your ability to work and lose your livelihood in the process.
I am perfectly entitled to my opinion like everyone else, just as we have a differing opinion.
Of course I don't hope it happens to me or anyone else
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]Also, I'm sure he wouldn't have applied for benefit unless he felt he needed them, so therefore, I would think, to be denied is an insult and degrading to the person who has to ask for that extra support.[/p][/quote]I am sure there are a lot of us who would like a bit of extra support when we have asked for it and have taken it on the chin when we have been denied[/p][/quote]You are truly unbelievable. Please read back what you've written and tell me you believe that people with serious disabilities should 'take it on the chin' when they are denied benefits which, by the benefit sections own criteria, they should be entitled. I said it before and I'll say it again. Lets hope it never happens to you. That you lose your ability to work and lose your livelihood in the process.[/p][/quote]I am perfectly entitled to my opinion like everyone else, just as we have a differing opinion. Of course I don't hope it happens to me or anyone else Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Tue 28 Jan 14

scraptheWAG says...

endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo






m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
Also, I'm sure he wouldn't have applied for benefit unless he felt he needed them, so therefore, I would think, to be denied is an insult and degrading to the person who has to ask for that extra support.
I am sure there are a lot of us who would like a bit of extra support when we have asked for it and have taken it on the chin when we have been denied
You are truly unbelievable. Please read back what you've written and tell me you believe that people with serious disabilities should 'take it on the chin' when they are denied benefits which, by the benefit sections own criteria, they should be entitled. I said it before and I'll say it again. Lets hope it never happens to you. That you lose your ability to work and lose your livelihood in the process.
there are very few so called disabled with anything wrong with them you only have to watch that c4 prog benefits street, fungi liked to drink too much and the fat women said she was depressed (she seemed well fed and jolly) and chained smoked all day apparently she was also guess what disabled!! And to be fair if you were unemployed would you want the 70 quid odd job seekers or the premium 120 a week for saying you were depressed stressed had spots or liked a drink if you really swing the lead you get the much coveted blue badge
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]Also, I'm sure he wouldn't have applied for benefit unless he felt he needed them, so therefore, I would think, to be denied is an insult and degrading to the person who has to ask for that extra support.[/p][/quote]I am sure there are a lot of us who would like a bit of extra support when we have asked for it and have taken it on the chin when we have been denied[/p][/quote]You are truly unbelievable. Please read back what you've written and tell me you believe that people with serious disabilities should 'take it on the chin' when they are denied benefits which, by the benefit sections own criteria, they should be entitled. I said it before and I'll say it again. Lets hope it never happens to you. That you lose your ability to work and lose your livelihood in the process.[/p][/quote]there are very few so called disabled with anything wrong with them you only have to watch that c4 prog benefits street, fungi liked to drink too much and the fat women said she was depressed (she seemed well fed and jolly) and chained smoked all day apparently she was also guess what disabled!! And to be fair if you were unemployed would you want the 70 quid odd job seekers or the premium 120 a week for saying you were depressed stressed had spots or liked a drink if you really swing the lead you get the much coveted blue badge scraptheWAG
  • Score: 4

7:11pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo








m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.
Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?
Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries.
http://www.thebolton



news.co.uk/news/9949



228.Soldier_loses_le



g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla



st___but_told_he_can



not_claim_benefits/
Right...now read this
http://www.leighrepo


rter.co.uk/news/loca


l/aaron-wins-claim-1


-5056269

He won a case a few weeks later
He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point!
I will argue that just because he has one leg amputated does not mean he cannot work
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.[/p][/quote]Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?[/p][/quote]Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries. http://www.thebolton news.co.uk/news/9949 228.Soldier_loses_le g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla st___but_told_he_can not_claim_benefits/[/p][/quote]Right...now read this http://www.leighrepo rter.co.uk/news/loca l/aaron-wins-claim-1 -5056269 He won a case a few weeks later[/p][/quote]He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point![/p][/quote]I will argue that just because he has one leg amputated does not mean he cannot work Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

7:19pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

The point from "scrap the WAG" regarding the C4 program and the people I know from the hospital I work at, these are the people who make it difficult for the people who you champion ie Aaron , as there so many people that I know and people similar to the C4 program are the people who make a mockery of the benefits system
The point from "scrap the WAG" regarding the C4 program and the people I know from the hospital I work at, these are the people who make it difficult for the people who you champion ie Aaron , as there so many people that I know and people similar to the C4 program are the people who make a mockery of the benefits system Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

7:38pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo









m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.
Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?
Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries.
http://www.thebolton




news.co.uk/news/9949




228.Soldier_loses_le




g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla




st___but_told_he_can




not_claim_benefits/
Right...now read this
http://www.leighrepo



rter.co.uk/news/loca



l/aaron-wins-claim-1



-5056269

He won a case a few weeks later
He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point!
I will argue that just because he has one leg amputated does not mean he cannot work
I did say it doesn't mean he can't work, although I'm not sure you understand the pain a prosthetic leg can cause, but disability benefits can help a person who wants to work too. Its not just paid for people to sit at home as I'm sure a lot of working disabled folk would agree. I will agree though that the folk who have abused the system have gave this government a perfect excuse to run roughshod over the genuinely disabled. Instead of all these programmes about 'lazy benefit claimants', lets see some programmes about the disabled who are suffering under this policy. George Osborne wasn't booed at the Paralympics because of all the good things he's done for the disabled!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.[/p][/quote]Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?[/p][/quote]Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries. http://www.thebolton news.co.uk/news/9949 228.Soldier_loses_le g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla st___but_told_he_can not_claim_benefits/[/p][/quote]Right...now read this http://www.leighrepo rter.co.uk/news/loca l/aaron-wins-claim-1 -5056269 He won a case a few weeks later[/p][/quote]He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point![/p][/quote]I will argue that just because he has one leg amputated does not mean he cannot work[/p][/quote]I did say it doesn't mean he can't work, although I'm not sure you understand the pain a prosthetic leg can cause, but disability benefits can help a person who wants to work too. Its not just paid for people to sit at home as I'm sure a lot of working disabled folk would agree. I will agree though that the folk who have abused the system have gave this government a perfect excuse to run roughshod over the genuinely disabled. Instead of all these programmes about 'lazy benefit claimants', lets see some programmes about the disabled who are suffering under this policy. George Osborne wasn't booed at the Paralympics because of all the good things he's done for the disabled! endthelies
  • Score: 0

7:55pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

sad thing is that the people who I see most days they probably didn't have to prove to go through what Aaron had to , and probably get more money than he would
That to me is very sad
sad thing is that the people who I see most days they probably didn't have to prove to go through what Aaron had to , and probably get more money than he would That to me is very sad Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Tue 28 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
sad thing is that the people who I see most days they probably didn't have to prove to go through what Aaron had to , and probably get more money than he would
That to me is very sad
I agree again (see I'm not all bad. just passionate about this subject :) ) That's what makes me mad. Why do some people have so much trouble getting what should be rightly theirs.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: sad thing is that the people who I see most days they probably didn't have to prove to go through what Aaron had to , and probably get more money than he would That to me is very sad[/p][/quote]I agree again (see I'm not all bad. just passionate about this subject :) ) That's what makes me mad. Why do some people have so much trouble getting what should be rightly theirs. endthelies
  • Score: 0

6:22pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Bobevans says...

Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all .
https://www.gov.uk/g


overnment/uploads/sy


stem/uploads/attachm


ent_data/file/223012


/esa_ibr_jan13.pdf
Whilst I do not know why so many people are successfully overturning their original decisions, but I would guess mental illness, there are many people (see previous post) who are quite content to use their mental illness as an excuse for not being able to work(ATOS psychiatrist says you can work, patient then bleats to his own consultant psychiatrist and then gets the original decision overturned) as you know mental illness is not an exact science (a reason exploited by many a pro pot commentator).

Why pick just Jan 2013 figures?,April 2013 ( successfully overturned 52%), July 2013 (53%) Oct (58%) Jan 2014 (61%), much as I would like ATOS get it right every time , at the end of the day two conclusions can be made
1 All those who were entitled to their benefits will continue to get their benefits
2 All those who were not entitled to any wont get any
I haven't got an issue with those two statements and I am sure most people in this country would agree with me.
Unless the mental illness is serious they are fully capable of working and work is actually likely to improve their condition. I suspect as well a good number are fake
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all . https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223012 /esa_ibr_jan13.pdf[/p][/quote]Whilst I do not know why so many people are successfully overturning their original decisions, but I would guess mental illness, there are many people (see previous post) who are quite content to use their mental illness as an excuse for not being able to work(ATOS psychiatrist says you can work, patient then bleats to his own consultant psychiatrist and then gets the original decision overturned) as you know mental illness is not an exact science (a reason exploited by many a pro pot commentator). Why pick just Jan 2013 figures?,April 2013 ( successfully overturned 52%), July 2013 (53%) Oct (58%) Jan 2014 (61%), much as I would like ATOS get it right every time , at the end of the day two conclusions can be made 1 All those who were entitled to their benefits will continue to get their benefits 2 All those who were not entitled to any wont get any I haven't got an issue with those two statements and I am sure most people in this country would agree with me.[/p][/quote]Unless the mental illness is serious they are fully capable of working and work is actually likely to improve their condition. I suspect as well a good number are fake Bobevans
  • Score: 5

6:28pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Magor says...

Newport would be better off in England, WAG is not interested east of Cardiff.
Newport would be better off in England, WAG is not interested east of Cardiff. Magor
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

Bobevans wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all .
https://www.gov.uk/g



overnment/uploads/sy



stem/uploads/attachm



ent_data/file/223012



/esa_ibr_jan13.pdf
Whilst I do not know why so many people are successfully overturning their original decisions, but I would guess mental illness, there are many people (see previous post) who are quite content to use their mental illness as an excuse for not being able to work(ATOS psychiatrist says you can work, patient then bleats to his own consultant psychiatrist and then gets the original decision overturned) as you know mental illness is not an exact science (a reason exploited by many a pro pot commentator).

Why pick just Jan 2013 figures?,April 2013 ( successfully overturned 52%), July 2013 (53%) Oct (58%) Jan 2014 (61%), much as I would like ATOS get it right every time , at the end of the day two conclusions can be made
1 All those who were entitled to their benefits will continue to get their benefits
2 All those who were not entitled to any wont get any
I haven't got an issue with those two statements and I am sure most people in this country would agree with me.
Unless the mental illness is serious they are fully capable of working and work is actually likely to improve their condition. I suspect as well a good number are fake
Yes I see quite a few who collect their monies from the cashiers office within the hospital, lazy so and so's don't even have to go outside to get it
They become de-skilled and many of them have no intention of trying to support themselves, I suppose they get all this spending money there is no incentive to get a job
As I stated before it's these people that make it harder for people like Aaron
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all . https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223012 /esa_ibr_jan13.pdf[/p][/quote]Whilst I do not know why so many people are successfully overturning their original decisions, but I would guess mental illness, there are many people (see previous post) who are quite content to use their mental illness as an excuse for not being able to work(ATOS psychiatrist says you can work, patient then bleats to his own consultant psychiatrist and then gets the original decision overturned) as you know mental illness is not an exact science (a reason exploited by many a pro pot commentator). Why pick just Jan 2013 figures?,April 2013 ( successfully overturned 52%), July 2013 (53%) Oct (58%) Jan 2014 (61%), much as I would like ATOS get it right every time , at the end of the day two conclusions can be made 1 All those who were entitled to their benefits will continue to get their benefits 2 All those who were not entitled to any wont get any I haven't got an issue with those two statements and I am sure most people in this country would agree with me.[/p][/quote]Unless the mental illness is serious they are fully capable of working and work is actually likely to improve their condition. I suspect as well a good number are fake[/p][/quote]Yes I see quite a few who collect their monies from the cashiers office within the hospital, lazy so and so's don't even have to go outside to get it They become de-skilled and many of them have no intention of trying to support themselves, I suppose they get all this spending money there is no incentive to get a job As I stated before it's these people that make it harder for people like Aaron Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo









m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.
Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?
Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries.
http://www.thebolton




news.co.uk/news/9949




228.Soldier_loses_le




g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla




st___but_told_he_can




not_claim_benefits/
Right...now read this
http://www.leighrepo



rter.co.uk/news/loca



l/aaron-wins-claim-1



-5056269

He won a case a few weeks later
He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point!
I will argue that just because he has one leg amputated does not mean he cannot work
Yes he may be able to work, but who is going to employ him ?
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.[/p][/quote]Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?[/p][/quote]Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries. http://www.thebolton news.co.uk/news/9949 228.Soldier_loses_le g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla st___but_told_he_can not_claim_benefits/[/p][/quote]Right...now read this http://www.leighrepo rter.co.uk/news/loca l/aaron-wins-claim-1 -5056269 He won a case a few weeks later[/p][/quote]He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point![/p][/quote]I will argue that just because he has one leg amputated does not mean he cannot work[/p][/quote]Yes he may be able to work, but who is going to employ him ? Mr Angry
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Mervyn James says...

county mad wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
endthelies wrote:
I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all .
https://www.gov.uk/g




overnment/uploads/sy




stem/uploads/attachm




ent_data/file/223012




/esa_ibr_jan13.pdf
How, can the DWP assess a woman who is both deaf and blind, as needing no support ? Kill 3,000 with a serious illness by forcing them to do tests that go beyond their, physical and mental limits ? but that is exactly what they are doing. Wrong assessment seems to be going in the DWP's favor, driven by threats and intimidation that affect those with the most need, not the least. As you suggest, 68% of testing is wrong, so why cannot they see what is obvious to them ? Maybe using off the dole amateurs of 17 to conduct medical tests, has something to do with it...
Couldn't agree with you more Mervyn. What this government and Atos are doing to the disabled is sickening.
Of course its this govt with you two labour troll ATOS were given the contract to assess the claiments by Andy Burnham LABOUR health secretary OOOPPS thats blown that arguement
I wouldn't say I was labour, more anti-tory really. I'd probably vote for anyone but a tory. As regards to ATOS, it is a criminal organisation staffed by amateurs with one remit to stop anyone claiming more benefits, and to remove benefits from those that still have them. I agree we have to root out frauds, as I am concerned that is niot an issue. What I can say is the assessments are killing, and demonizing the wrong people, i.e.. not frauds but the vulnerable unable to speak for themselves.

Two areas of disabled people are suffering unnecessarily, their issue is the fact you cannot see what is wrong with them, e.g. Deaf people, and those with Mental Health issues, there are 10 million with hearing loss issues, and, 25% of the UK population with mental health issues,whilst not all of them are unable to work a significant area have such issues they cannot effectively be employed, indeed deaf have 68% who have never been offered a full time job of any kind.

463,000 with hearing loss only, were eligible out of 10m for an DLA allowance, 300,000 under the new swap to PIP have had that removed altogether already. The figures suggest that everyone was claiming for hearing loss, was not true at all. If you do not consider MH an issue, I can only suggest there is a job waiting for you at ATOS.

17yr olds ticking boxes is the sole 'medical assessment' refusals are based on for many, medical only pertains to the physical, not the mental aspect, or the sensory, so although you are deaf, or blind or have such mental health issues you are unable to cope at all with daily life, then the fact you can walk or talk is sufficient for a blank refusal, I suggest this is unfair, any reasonable person would, whether they voted Labour or not.

The politics of hate and and segregation are the sole domain of hooray Henry conservatives. As regards to the current "There you go there is proof.." by tories and daily mail readers re Benefits street, EVERY single street in the UK has a benefit claimant, every single family claims one. SO if we have to demonise people, demonise all equally, even people who work have to claim benefits because the wages are so poor. In the eyes of the DWP It is fraud to work and claim....
[quote][p][bold]county mad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all . https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223012 /esa_ibr_jan13.pdf[/p][/quote]How, can the DWP assess a woman who is both deaf and blind, as needing no support ? Kill 3,000 with a serious illness by forcing them to do tests that go beyond their, physical and mental limits ? but that is exactly what they are doing. Wrong assessment seems to be going in the DWP's favor, driven by threats and intimidation that affect those with the most need, not the least. As you suggest, 68% of testing is wrong, so why cannot they see what is obvious to them ? Maybe using off the dole amateurs of 17 to conduct medical tests, has something to do with it...[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree with you more Mervyn. What this government and Atos are doing to the disabled is sickening.[/p][/quote]Of course its this govt with you two labour troll ATOS were given the contract to assess the claiments by Andy Burnham LABOUR health secretary OOOPPS thats blown that arguement[/p][/quote]I wouldn't say I was labour, more anti-tory really. I'd probably vote for anyone but a tory. As regards to ATOS, it is a criminal organisation staffed by amateurs with one remit to stop anyone claiming more benefits, and to remove benefits from those that still have them. I agree we have to root out frauds, as I am concerned that is niot an issue. What I can say is the assessments are killing, and demonizing the wrong people, i.e.. not frauds but the vulnerable unable to speak for themselves. Two areas of disabled people are suffering unnecessarily, their issue is the fact you cannot see what is wrong with them, e.g. Deaf people, and those with Mental Health issues, there are 10 million with hearing loss issues, and, 25% of the UK population with mental health issues,whilst not all of them are unable to work a significant area have such issues they cannot effectively be employed, indeed deaf have 68% who have never been offered a full time job of any kind. 463,000 with hearing loss only, were eligible out of 10m for an DLA allowance, 300,000 under the new swap to PIP have had that removed altogether already. The figures suggest that everyone was claiming for hearing loss, was not true at all. If you do not consider MH an issue, I can only suggest there is a job waiting for you at ATOS. 17yr olds ticking boxes is the sole 'medical assessment' refusals are based on for many, medical only pertains to the physical, not the mental aspect, or the sensory, so although you are deaf, or blind or have such mental health issues you are unable to cope at all with daily life, then the fact you can walk or talk is sufficient for a blank refusal, I suggest this is unfair, any reasonable person would, whether they voted Labour or not. The politics of hate and and segregation are the sole domain of hooray Henry conservatives. As regards to the current "There you go there is proof.." by tories and daily mail readers re Benefits street, EVERY single street in the UK has a benefit claimant, every single family claims one. SO if we have to demonise people, demonise all equally, even people who work have to claim benefits because the wages are so poor. In the eyes of the DWP It is fraud to work and claim.... Mervyn James
  • Score: -1

7:06pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo










m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.
Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?
Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries.
http://www.thebolton





news.co.uk/news/9949





228.Soldier_loses_le





g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla





st___but_told_he_can





not_claim_benefits/
Right...now read this
http://www.leighrepo




rter.co.uk/news/loca




l/aaron-wins-claim-1




-5056269

He won a case a few weeks later
He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point!
I will argue that just because he has one leg amputated does not mean he cannot work
Yes he may be able to work, but who is going to employ him ?
I am sure there are plenty of jobs he could do and a lot of Kudos for any firm that would take him on, probably do a lot better than quite a few people I know within the NHS
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.[/p][/quote]Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?[/p][/quote]Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries. http://www.thebolton news.co.uk/news/9949 228.Soldier_loses_le g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla st___but_told_he_can not_claim_benefits/[/p][/quote]Right...now read this http://www.leighrepo rter.co.uk/news/loca l/aaron-wins-claim-1 -5056269 He won a case a few weeks later[/p][/quote]He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point![/p][/quote]I will argue that just because he has one leg amputated does not mean he cannot work[/p][/quote]Yes he may be able to work, but who is going to employ him ?[/p][/quote]I am sure there are plenty of jobs he could do and a lot of Kudos for any firm that would take him on, probably do a lot better than quite a few people I know within the NHS Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Wed 29 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Mervyn James wrote:
county mad wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
endthelies wrote:
I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all .
https://www.gov.uk/g





overnment/uploads/sy





stem/uploads/attachm





ent_data/file/223012





/esa_ibr_jan13.pdf
How, can the DWP assess a woman who is both deaf and blind, as needing no support ? Kill 3,000 with a serious illness by forcing them to do tests that go beyond their, physical and mental limits ? but that is exactly what they are doing. Wrong assessment seems to be going in the DWP's favor, driven by threats and intimidation that affect those with the most need, not the least. As you suggest, 68% of testing is wrong, so why cannot they see what is obvious to them ? Maybe using off the dole amateurs of 17 to conduct medical tests, has something to do with it...
Couldn't agree with you more Mervyn. What this government and Atos are doing to the disabled is sickening.
Of course its this govt with you two labour troll ATOS were given the contract to assess the claiments by Andy Burnham LABOUR health secretary OOOPPS thats blown that arguement
I wouldn't say I was labour, more anti-tory really. I'd probably vote for anyone but a tory. As regards to ATOS, it is a criminal organisation staffed by amateurs with one remit to stop anyone claiming more benefits, and to remove benefits from those that still have them. I agree we have to root out frauds, as I am concerned that is niot an issue. What I can say is the assessments are killing, and demonizing the wrong people, i.e.. not frauds but the vulnerable unable to speak for themselves.

Two areas of disabled people are suffering unnecessarily, their issue is the fact you cannot see what is wrong with them, e.g. Deaf people, and those with Mental Health issues, there are 10 million with hearing loss issues, and, 25% of the UK population with mental health issues,whilst not all of them are unable to work a significant area have such issues they cannot effectively be employed, indeed deaf have 68% who have never been offered a full time job of any kind.

463,000 with hearing loss only, were eligible out of 10m for an DLA allowance, 300,000 under the new swap to PIP have had that removed altogether already. The figures suggest that everyone was claiming for hearing loss, was not true at all. If you do not consider MH an issue, I can only suggest there is a job waiting for you at ATOS.

17yr olds ticking boxes is the sole 'medical assessment' refusals are based on for many, medical only pertains to the physical, not the mental aspect, or the sensory, so although you are deaf, or blind or have such mental health issues you are unable to cope at all with daily life, then the fact you can walk or talk is sufficient for a blank refusal, I suggest this is unfair, any reasonable person would, whether they voted Labour or not.

The politics of hate and and segregation are the sole domain of hooray Henry conservatives. As regards to the current "There you go there is proof.." by tories and daily mail readers re Benefits street, EVERY single street in the UK has a benefit claimant, every single family claims one. SO if we have to demonise people, demonise all equally, even people who work have to claim benefits because the wages are so poor. In the eyes of the DWP It is fraud to work and claim....
Very well said Mervyn.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]county mad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: I've just found the statistics for people who have appealed a decision and had the original decision reversed in their favour. 68%. Yup that's 68%. Now if that's the amount of people who are WRONGLY assessed then there's something wrong, you must admit that, you being a Doctor and all . https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/223012 /esa_ibr_jan13.pdf[/p][/quote]How, can the DWP assess a woman who is both deaf and blind, as needing no support ? Kill 3,000 with a serious illness by forcing them to do tests that go beyond their, physical and mental limits ? but that is exactly what they are doing. Wrong assessment seems to be going in the DWP's favor, driven by threats and intimidation that affect those with the most need, not the least. As you suggest, 68% of testing is wrong, so why cannot they see what is obvious to them ? Maybe using off the dole amateurs of 17 to conduct medical tests, has something to do with it...[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree with you more Mervyn. What this government and Atos are doing to the disabled is sickening.[/p][/quote]Of course its this govt with you two labour troll ATOS were given the contract to assess the claiments by Andy Burnham LABOUR health secretary OOOPPS thats blown that arguement[/p][/quote]I wouldn't say I was labour, more anti-tory really. I'd probably vote for anyone but a tory. As regards to ATOS, it is a criminal organisation staffed by amateurs with one remit to stop anyone claiming more benefits, and to remove benefits from those that still have them. I agree we have to root out frauds, as I am concerned that is niot an issue. What I can say is the assessments are killing, and demonizing the wrong people, i.e.. not frauds but the vulnerable unable to speak for themselves. Two areas of disabled people are suffering unnecessarily, their issue is the fact you cannot see what is wrong with them, e.g. Deaf people, and those with Mental Health issues, there are 10 million with hearing loss issues, and, 25% of the UK population with mental health issues,whilst not all of them are unable to work a significant area have such issues they cannot effectively be employed, indeed deaf have 68% who have never been offered a full time job of any kind. 463,000 with hearing loss only, were eligible out of 10m for an DLA allowance, 300,000 under the new swap to PIP have had that removed altogether already. The figures suggest that everyone was claiming for hearing loss, was not true at all. If you do not consider MH an issue, I can only suggest there is a job waiting for you at ATOS. 17yr olds ticking boxes is the sole 'medical assessment' refusals are based on for many, medical only pertains to the physical, not the mental aspect, or the sensory, so although you are deaf, or blind or have such mental health issues you are unable to cope at all with daily life, then the fact you can walk or talk is sufficient for a blank refusal, I suggest this is unfair, any reasonable person would, whether they voted Labour or not. The politics of hate and and segregation are the sole domain of hooray Henry conservatives. As regards to the current "There you go there is proof.." by tories and daily mail readers re Benefits street, EVERY single street in the UK has a benefit claimant, every single family claims one. SO if we have to demonise people, demonise all equally, even people who work have to claim benefits because the wages are so poor. In the eyes of the DWP It is fraud to work and claim....[/p][/quote]Very well said Mervyn. endthelies
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Dr Martin wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo











m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.
Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?
Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries.
http://www.thebolton






news.co.uk/news/9949






228.Soldier_loses_le






g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla






st___but_told_he_can






not_claim_benefits/
Right...now read this
http://www.leighrepo





rter.co.uk/news/loca





l/aaron-wins-claim-1





-5056269

He won a case a few weeks later
He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point!
I will argue that just because he has one leg amputated does not mean he cannot work
Yes he may be able to work, but who is going to employ him ?
I am sure there are plenty of jobs he could do and a lot of Kudos for any firm that would take him on, probably do a lot better than quite a few people I know within the NHS
Taking on someone with a disability involves extra costs, no employer wants, and i would imagine he is restricted in what he can do.

I have no doubt he wants to work but finding someone willing to take him on and incur more costs in office adaptations, and liabilities etc is a different matter.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.[/p][/quote]Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?[/p][/quote]Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries. http://www.thebolton news.co.uk/news/9949 228.Soldier_loses_le g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla st___but_told_he_can not_claim_benefits/[/p][/quote]Right...now read this http://www.leighrepo rter.co.uk/news/loca l/aaron-wins-claim-1 -5056269 He won a case a few weeks later[/p][/quote]He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point![/p][/quote]I will argue that just because he has one leg amputated does not mean he cannot work[/p][/quote]Yes he may be able to work, but who is going to employ him ?[/p][/quote]I am sure there are plenty of jobs he could do and a lot of Kudos for any firm that would take him on, probably do a lot better than quite a few people I know within the NHS[/p][/quote]Taking on someone with a disability involves extra costs, no employer wants, and i would imagine he is restricted in what he can do. I have no doubt he wants to work but finding someone willing to take him on and incur more costs in office adaptations, and liabilities etc is a different matter. Mr Angry
  • Score: 0

8:02pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
@ GardenVarietyMushroo












m

you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made
So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.
So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment.
There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness
I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.
Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?
Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries.
http://www.thebolton







news.co.uk/news/9949







228.Soldier_loses_le







g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla







st___but_told_he_can







not_claim_benefits/
Right...now read this
http://www.leighrepo






rter.co.uk/news/loca






l/aaron-wins-claim-1






-5056269

He won a case a few weeks later
He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point!
I will argue that just because he has one leg amputated does not mean he cannot work
Yes he may be able to work, but who is going to employ him ?
I am sure there are plenty of jobs he could do and a lot of Kudos for any firm that would take him on, probably do a lot better than quite a few people I know within the NHS
Taking on someone with a disability involves extra costs, no employer wants, and i would imagine he is restricted in what he can do.

I have no doubt he wants to work but finding someone willing to take him on and incur more costs in office adaptations, and liabilities etc is a different matter.
Most public sector buildings (thinking in terms of hospitals) would be okay for Aaron
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: @ GardenVarietyMushroo m you say incompetence I say interpretation, at the end of the day everyone has been assessed twice and the right decisions have been made[/p][/quote]So an army vet with no legs was correctly assessed, is that what you're saying? The people who died, having been told by the wonderdocs at Atos that they were fit for work were 'putting it on'. If you work for the NHS then theres no hope for us. I worked with the disabled and I can identify with the problems these people face. You obviously can't.[/p][/quote]So was this Army vet was assessed twice?, if so, then yes, just because he has no legs he is not useless, I think there are many people in a similar situation that would be glad of paid employment. There again I was referring to those with mental illness not a physical illness[/p][/quote]I didn't say he was useless, but disability benefits are also paid to people that WORK to help them with transport costs, hearing equipment or whatever they need to help them stay in employment. Could you manage with no legs after fighting for a country that won't support you when you are injured.[/p][/quote]Just as a matter of interest who is the army man with no legs and is applying for benefit, have you got a link?[/p][/quote]Yes. I will apologise though as he lost one leg, not both. Not that it makes any difference really as he suffered other terrible injuries. http://www.thebolton news.co.uk/news/9949 228.Soldier_loses_le g_in_Afghan_bomb_bla st___but_told_he_can not_claim_benefits/[/p][/quote]Right...now read this http://www.leighrepo rter.co.uk/news/loca l/aaron-wins-claim-1 -5056269 He won a case a few weeks later[/p][/quote]He shouldn't have been denied them in the first place. That's the point![/p][/quote]I will argue that just because he has one leg amputated does not mean he cannot work[/p][/quote]Yes he may be able to work, but who is going to employ him ?[/p][/quote]I am sure there are plenty of jobs he could do and a lot of Kudos for any firm that would take him on, probably do a lot better than quite a few people I know within the NHS[/p][/quote]Taking on someone with a disability involves extra costs, no employer wants, and i would imagine he is restricted in what he can do. I have no doubt he wants to work but finding someone willing to take him on and incur more costs in office adaptations, and liabilities etc is a different matter.[/p][/quote]Most public sector buildings (thinking in terms of hospitals) would be okay for Aaron Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

10:38pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

I agree, however you may have noticed a Public Sector recruitment freeze. It not easy for the disabled to find work
I agree, however you may have noticed a Public Sector recruitment freeze. It not easy for the disabled to find work Mr Angry
  • Score: 0

7:42am Thu 30 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

http://www.jobs.nhs.
uk/cgi-bin/advsearch


8133 jobs advertised this morning
http://www.jobs.nhs. uk/cgi-bin/advsearch 8133 jobs advertised this morning Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

11:18am Thu 30 Jan 14

Mr Angry says...

Dr Martin wrote:
http://www.jobs.nhs. uk/cgi-bin/advsearch 8133 jobs advertised this morning
All very well saying that, how many of the 8133 is he qualiifed for ? How many can he physically do ? How many are within travelling distance ?

Its all very well making sweeping statements like 8133 jobs available - the devil is in the detail
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: http://www.jobs.nhs. uk/cgi-bin/advsearch 8133 jobs advertised this morning[/p][/quote]All very well saying that, how many of the 8133 is he qualiifed for ? How many can he physically do ? How many are within travelling distance ? Its all very well making sweeping statements like 8133 jobs available - the devil is in the detail Mr Angry
  • Score: 0

11:22am Thu 30 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
http://www.jobs.nhs.

uk/cgi-bin/advsearch



8133 jobs advertised this morning
The fact is, he was entitled to claim a benefit which he was denied by Atos. Because of the ludicrous questionnaire they use to decide whether someone is disabled or not. Even if his own g.p and consultants have said he needs the help. He was denied. As our thousands of genuinely disabled folk who cannot work, whether It be a permanent or a temporary disability. People are dying whilst waiting for appeals to be heard. Its just not right.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: http://www.jobs.nhs. uk/cgi-bin/advsearch 8133 jobs advertised this morning[/p][/quote]The fact is, he was entitled to claim a benefit which he was denied by Atos. Because of the ludicrous questionnaire they use to decide whether someone is disabled or not. Even if his own g.p and consultants have said he needs the help. He was denied. As our thousands of genuinely disabled folk who cannot work, whether It be a permanent or a temporary disability. People are dying whilst waiting for appeals to be heard. Its just not right. endthelies
  • Score: 0

11:34am Thu 30 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

Mr Angry wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
http://www.jobs.nhs. uk/cgi-bin/advsearch 8133 jobs advertised this morning
All very well saying that, how many of the 8133 is he qualiifed for ? How many can he physically do ? How many are within travelling distance ?

Its all very well making sweeping statements like 8133 jobs available - the devil is in the detail
I was replying to the statement you made regarding "Public Sector recruitment freeze"
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: http://www.jobs.nhs. uk/cgi-bin/advsearch 8133 jobs advertised this morning[/p][/quote]All very well saying that, how many of the 8133 is he qualiifed for ? How many can he physically do ? How many are within travelling distance ? Its all very well making sweeping statements like 8133 jobs available - the devil is in the detail[/p][/quote]I was replying to the statement you made regarding "Public Sector recruitment freeze" Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

11:49am Thu 30 Jan 14

Dr Martin says...

endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
http://www.jobs.nhs.


uk/cgi-bin/advsearch




8133 jobs advertised this morning
The fact is, he was entitled to claim a benefit which he was denied by Atos. Because of the ludicrous questionnaire they use to decide whether someone is disabled or not. Even if his own g.p and consultants have said he needs the help. He was denied. As our thousands of genuinely disabled folk who cannot work, whether It be a permanent or a temporary disability. People are dying whilst waiting for appeals to be heard. Its just not right.
err yes I understood we agreed with each other's positions on Tuesday evening, not sure why you are repeating it
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: http://www.jobs.nhs. uk/cgi-bin/advsearch 8133 jobs advertised this morning[/p][/quote]The fact is, he was entitled to claim a benefit which he was denied by Atos. Because of the ludicrous questionnaire they use to decide whether someone is disabled or not. Even if his own g.p and consultants have said he needs the help. He was denied. As our thousands of genuinely disabled folk who cannot work, whether It be a permanent or a temporary disability. People are dying whilst waiting for appeals to be heard. Its just not right.[/p][/quote]err yes I understood we agreed with each other's positions on Tuesday evening, not sure why you are repeating it Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

12:09pm Thu 30 Jan 14

endthelies says...

Dr Martin wrote:
endthelies wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
http://www.jobs.nhs.



uk/cgi-bin/advsearch





8133 jobs advertised this morning
The fact is, he was entitled to claim a benefit which he was denied by Atos. Because of the ludicrous questionnaire they use to decide whether someone is disabled or not. Even if his own g.p and consultants have said he needs the help. He was denied. As our thousands of genuinely disabled folk who cannot work, whether It be a permanent or a temporary disability. People are dying whilst waiting for appeals to be heard. Its just not right.
err yes I understood we agreed with each other's positions on Tuesday evening, not sure why you are repeating it
I wasn't arguing with you, just stating the facts. Whether or not he COULD be capable of work, whatever that work may be, does not alter the fact that he was denied what he was properly entitled to, That's all I wanted to say.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: http://www.jobs.nhs. uk/cgi-bin/advsearch 8133 jobs advertised this morning[/p][/quote]The fact is, he was entitled to claim a benefit which he was denied by Atos. Because of the ludicrous questionnaire they use to decide whether someone is disabled or not. Even if his own g.p and consultants have said he needs the help. He was denied. As our thousands of genuinely disabled folk who cannot work, whether It be a permanent or a temporary disability. People are dying whilst waiting for appeals to be heard. Its just not right.[/p][/quote]err yes I understood we agreed with each other's positions on Tuesday evening, not sure why you are repeating it[/p][/quote]I wasn't arguing with you, just stating the facts. Whether or not he COULD be capable of work, whatever that work may be, does not alter the fact that he was denied what he was properly entitled to, That's all I wanted to say. endthelies
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree