Is it wrong of me to think that most of the people they find cheating will also be on a long list of other benifits? ie making a career out of claiming money and not working.
Pity, as it uses money that could go to the geniunly needy.

Well many were put in IB when governments had a crack down on unemployment, bumping people up to IB was a easy way out for all concerned. There are a few who are not entitled but even the governments own figures put the numbers down as less than £2 billion over the entire country. Whether some are on the wrong benefit is debateable. I suspect that many will appeal and win their old benefits back. What has happened is that the work definitions have changed so much that people are now finding that they are told that they can work, also add in the fact that they might face having to move because of their age and the housing benefits will not cover them any longer.

While people might think that this is a good thing, if you look at the benefits overall you need to consider what would happen if an accident cost you your job? Some will find that they will not only find a subtstantial drop in income but find that if they are below 35 that they will no longer be able to have a flat of their own.

Bureaucracy and red tape FTMFW.

TBH I want a crackdown in benefits in general. Near where I live, there's a pharmacy where 99% of people claim their meds on some form of benefits. Frustratingly, a lot of the are young and ethnic, driving around in souped-up cars that even I can't really afford!

I wonder whether it'd be better to have some way of just paying these peoples' bills and nothing else.

Next challenge - find these people jobs. No need - trick them out of any kind of entitlement.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... -sanctions

I think the level of cheating is overplayed greatly.

I know for certain that making the cut off point even harder to get incapacity benefit will result in more suicides. There are already cases where my GF writes on behalf of clients about mental health issues and they don't care one bit. The client then spends the whole year appealing against rejections and when they finally succeed they have to start all over again.

They're trying to stigmatise benefit claimants.

Like I've said before, I would rather a few cheats fall through the net if it means those who need it get it and don't end up feeling that their only option is suicide.

A third of claimants is not a few cheats falling through the net. However I do agree with you, especially when you think that all this reassement will cost in itself.

I'm sorry, how have you decided a third are cheats? Just because they're changing the marking system to a ridiculous one doesn't mean those receiving benefit under the current system are cheats.

Take the woman who had a brain haemorrhage whose right hand doesn't function who was passed as being able to use that hand, the man who uses a wheelchair as he can only walk a few paces without help and who has 24 hour pain but is deemed fit to work, or the guy with a degenerative back disorder that will only get worse with time but the benefits agency think they can judge better than medical science and state that this is only a temporary condition. There are countless other cases, these are some who fall into the third you class as cheats.

Just because the Government has decided they're cutting benefit to a third does not mean they're cheating. It's the same as if they decided a third of all rail services were to be cut because of a change of criteria, that doesn't mean those trains aren't being used.

Like I say, my GF has written on behalf of people with mental health issues and even with other letters from GPs and Psychiatrists this information is not even considered. Vulnerable people with mental health issues have to fight to be able to claim, and that fight goes on for months. Then the Government make people decide they're cheats and it's portrayed that there are loads of people getting money they're not entitled to even when it's almost impossible to get any money in the first place.

Stigmatism of claimants has worked, people are sucking it up like fools.

A figure that appeared in the posted or another related article.

Statistics.

The problem is that when many people lose their jobs they will suddenly find that the benefits system does not help them. It is not until it hits them do many people think that people should be entitled to help, writing them off as work shy. Before I had my accident I did not know anyone who was disabled, and I am sure that many are like that.

I agree with this completely. Cutting 1/3 of benefits is fine if it involves only the benefit cheats. The moment it hits the needy is the moment we have failed them.


The worse thing is I've seen this and can't do anything about it. I know GPs who have happily rung up to reinforce things and it gets ignored. Mental Health services are under threat and may completely fail altogether.

This is a worry. As someone's who's had need of their services (and probably owes them my present good health and being an active, contributing member of society helping kids in college) I'd hate to think I'd have missed their support because of bureaucracy.

I have to say I look forward to it coming in.

I was off unpaid from uni following my operation, and following my car accident I had 1/2 day off unpaid (to see the doctor and because I needed sleep having been in A+E till 3am or so after the accident). I didn't claim on the first because I don't think I am entitled, I didn't claim on sick pay as I was still physically able to work, it wasn't comfortable but I'd rather work and be in a place I can easily get to a hospital if needed than being home alone on a large number of pain meds

The governments own figures put cheats at less than most people imagine. It is like blaming all doctors for the mistakes of Dr Shipman. Or all dads are like Josef Fritzl. The government will only make savings by getting genuine claimants on to cheaper benefits. Nothing to do with helping them back to work. It is about cutting what they get.