RANT - i'm getting a bit annoyed with our welfare state....
30 July 2007, 04:16 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why was there a local councillor on a bbc radio show bounding those stats around, perhaps if i were as wise as you I would have taken it up at the time. You are obviously looking for an arguement with someone which is why your first tack was to call me a ***** rather than constructively critisise my comment. Yes I understand that you cant always see by looking at the person. I was trying to say the whole disabled criteria seems very lax in my opinion and as stated before I am entitled to one also.
As for the local councillor, he obviously has his facts wrong, or , has some political agenda trying to stir up people that won't bother to check his facts into a frenzy about massive disabled benefit fraud in Milton Keynes. When is fact, there is patently no such thing.
30 July 2007, 04:28 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Logged Out
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A disability doesn't necessarily mean you can't do anything, which is how a lot of the fraudsters see it, and therefore claim it for a 'legal' way out of working.
30 July 2007, 04:43 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/dlafraudjuly05.pdf
Number of cases of proven fraudulent claims of disability benefit (as a percentage of the total number of benefit claimants) 0.5% = £40,000,000
Total disability benefit budget = £8,000,000,000
In other words, disability fraud is less of a problem than, say, official errors
Benefit fraud for disability is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things.
30 July 2007, 04:43 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just did some digging around (I like to do this when suspiciously high figures like 25% are bandied about).
http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/stat...ents/employees
According to the last Census, the permanently sick/disabled population of Milton Keynes is a whacking 3.9%.
Now, unless there has been a massive influx of disabled people moving to Milton Keynes, I would say the "radio" or the bloke down the pub or whoeever came up with 25% is talking absolute ****e.
http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/stat...ents/employees
According to the last Census, the permanently sick/disabled population of Milton Keynes is a whacking 3.9%.
Now, unless there has been a massive influx of disabled people moving to Milton Keynes, I would say the "radio" or the bloke down the pub or whoeever came up with 25% is talking absolute ****e.
http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/soci...Appendix_4.pdf
you will see it states on page 11 the 2003 figures are 8.4% so the same agency cant even get the figures right. So really how do we know who to believe and when.
I apologise if I have touched a nerve through what you have percived as my ignorance towards disability. I guess I am suffering with the minority that take the p1ss spoil things for the majority. It then clouds your view.
Hopefully that brings things back to the starter subject before I slightly hijacked it. Although feel free to comment by stating this I am not trying to sneakily stop the debate.
30 July 2007, 04:53 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And when you follow this link to the same site
http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/soci...Appendix_4.pdf
you will see it states on page 11 the 2003 figures are 8.4% so the same agency cant even get the figures right. So really how do we know who to believe and when.
I apologise if I have touched a nerve through what you have percived as my ignorance towards disability. I guess I am suffering with the minority that take the p1ss spoil things for the majority. It then clouds your view.
Hopefully that brings things back to the starter subject before I slightly hijacked it. Although feel free to comment by stating this I am not trying to sneakily stop the debate.
http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/soci...Appendix_4.pdf
you will see it states on page 11 the 2003 figures are 8.4% so the same agency cant even get the figures right. So really how do we know who to believe and when.
I apologise if I have touched a nerve through what you have percived as my ignorance towards disability. I guess I am suffering with the minority that take the p1ss spoil things for the majority. It then clouds your view.
Hopefully that brings things back to the starter subject before I slightly hijacked it. Although feel free to comment by stating this I am not trying to sneakily stop the debate.
The 2003 figures are projected. And counts people who "may" be disabled, not actual claimants.
The 3.9% is the number of diabled people that are permanently unemployed due to sickness or disablement in 2001 and claiming- Obviously this does not include temporary disability.
As far as I underatnd it anyway.
Certainly not 25% in any event!
30 July 2007, 04:55 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 July 2007, 05:01 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Logged Out
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£40,000,000 could do some good elsewhere I bet.
30 July 2007, 05:02 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2003 figures are projected. And counts people who "may" be disabled, not actual claimants.
The 3.9% is the number of diabled people that are permanently unemployed due to sickness or disablement in 2001 and claiming- Obviously this does not include temporary disability.
As far as I underatnd it anyway.
Certainly not 25% in any event!
The 3.9% is the number of diabled people that are permanently unemployed due to sickness or disablement in 2001 and claiming- Obviously this does not include temporary disability.
As far as I underatnd it anyway.
Certainly not 25% in any event!
30 July 2007, 05:05 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it could, and of course disability fraud is reprehensible - But surely you are focusing on the wrong issue if financial matters are your concern. Far more money is wasted on bureaucracy and error than it is on fraud, when is comes to disability benefit - That should be the immediate target if saving money is the concern.
30 July 2007, 05:06 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was trying to count all disabilities not just the one leaving people at home unable to work. This may account for the figure being closer to 8%, either way it shows how you can produce figure and statistics to back up your particular arguement. Much like they may have done in the radio interview. Who knows they may have included the carers into their figures for better effect.
30 July 2007, 06:11 PM
#42
At first I felt anger at the original poster, but then realised he is just a misinformed individual. Yes sure, there are some lazy people that like living off benefits. But the majority of people claiming job seekers allowance are people that have lost their job through no fault of their own such as redundancy etc.
In my line of work (electronics) all the factories that used to be in my area, have moved to eastern Europe or the far east. Consequently, I have had to take short term contract work wherever I can get it. This work is also drying up as I've been unemployed for the past 5 months.
I very strongly resent being called "lazy", "a sponger", etc.
How would you like to live on £59 per week. Or suffer the humiliation of being talked about by people you know when they see you walk into the jobcentre. Or being quizzed by stuck up claims advisers looking down their nose at you when you go to sign on every fortnight. Or not being able to pay your bills and having default notices issued against you. Or having the bailiffs round to seize your possessions to sell for next to nothing at public auctions.
Luckily for me I've not got to that stage yet but I know people that have.
I've just been offered a very lucrative 6 month contract, so I have a stay of execution for the time being at least.
In my line of work (electronics) all the factories that used to be in my area, have moved to eastern Europe or the far east. Consequently, I have had to take short term contract work wherever I can get it. This work is also drying up as I've been unemployed for the past 5 months.
I very strongly resent being called "lazy", "a sponger", etc.
How would you like to live on £59 per week. Or suffer the humiliation of being talked about by people you know when they see you walk into the jobcentre. Or being quizzed by stuck up claims advisers looking down their nose at you when you go to sign on every fortnight. Or not being able to pay your bills and having default notices issued against you. Or having the bailiffs round to seize your possessions to sell for next to nothing at public auctions.
Luckily for me I've not got to that stage yet but I know people that have.
I've just been offered a very lucrative 6 month contract, so I have a stay of execution for the time being at least.
30 July 2007, 06:37 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 1,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At first I felt anger at the original poster, but then realised he is just a misinformed individual. Yes sure, there are some lazy people that like living off benefits. But the majority of people claiming job seekers allowance are people that have lost their job through no fault of their own such as redundancy etc.
In my line of work (electronics) all the factories that used to be in my area, have moved to eastern Europe or the far east. Consequently, I have had to take short term contract work wherever I can get it. This work is also drying up as I've been unemployed for the past 5 months.
I very strongly resent being called "lazy", "a sponger", etc.
How would you like to live on £59 per week. Or suffer the humiliation of being talked about by people you know when they see you walk into the jobcentre. Or being quizzed by stuck up claims advisers looking down their nose at you when you go to sign on every fortnight. Or not being able to pay your bills and having default notices issued against you. Or having the bailiffs round to seize your possessions to sell for next to nothing at public auctions.
Luckily for me I've not got to that stage yet but I know people that have.
I've just been offered a very lucrative 6 month contract, so I have a stay of execution for the time being at least.
In my line of work (electronics) all the factories that used to be in my area, have moved to eastern Europe or the far east. Consequently, I have had to take short term contract work wherever I can get it. This work is also drying up as I've been unemployed for the past 5 months.
I very strongly resent being called "lazy", "a sponger", etc.
How would you like to live on £59 per week. Or suffer the humiliation of being talked about by people you know when they see you walk into the jobcentre. Or being quizzed by stuck up claims advisers looking down their nose at you when you go to sign on every fortnight. Or not being able to pay your bills and having default notices issued against you. Or having the bailiffs round to seize your possessions to sell for next to nothing at public auctions.
Luckily for me I've not got to that stage yet but I know people that have.
I've just been offered a very lucrative 6 month contract, so I have a stay of execution for the time being at least.
30 July 2007, 06:45 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Logged Out
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it could, and of course disability fraud is reprehensible - But surely you are focusing on the wrong issue if financial matters are your concern. Far more money is wasted on bureaucracy and error than it is on fraud, when is comes to disability benefit - That should be the immediate target if saving money is the concern.
**** knows where you're going with figures except you've appeared to confirm that because the figures say so, it's OK to allow claims from anybody who tries it on as it's not much of drain on resources. I'm aware of the figures but it matters not, morally it stinks.
Then you've gone off on one about money wasted on bureaucracy and errors within the system.
I guess it could go on but in the vain of the thread, too many wasters are bleeding the country dry.
30 July 2007, 06:49 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Logged Out
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scunnered, your story is so far from what the OP was referring to that your post doesn't do you any favours.
Good luck in your struggle to get yourself back, you deserve it.
Good luck in your struggle to get yourself back, you deserve it.
30 July 2007, 07:09 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You WANT to work, so I am sure would agree with me that you would rather take a crap job for £80.- a week than do nothing for £59.-. The problem is that some people wouldn't, and that was who the original post was referring to.
Good luck with the work situation, I hope it works out for you.
30 July 2007, 07:18 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I said in my original post was said because I feel such a system would have a positive knock-on effect in many different areas. How much petty crime do you think is committed by people who sign on fraudulently? I don't know myself, but I bet it's loads!
If I'm out cleaning graffitti for my weekly paycheck, that leaves me less time to shoplift.
30 July 2007, 07:21 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Logged Out
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 July 2007, 07:30 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are so many 16-21 year olds about now, who have no intention of ever working. Theyve been dragged up by parents who've never worked themselves so for these youngsters, the idea of working for a living is completely alien to them.
Until the government stops paying these wasters to do nothing, than cant see the situation changing any time soon.
My own cousin (ashamed to say) whos 34 now hasnt worked since he was 18.Hes just a bone idle lump but, for some reason the DSS keep paying him to be like this as well as his wife and pay towards there 2 kids. A few years ago now , they even built him a new detached "eco" house- Special heat retaining glass etc! I wish for the day they say to him" pay your own way"
Sadly, dont think that will ever happen!
Until the government stops paying these wasters to do nothing, than cant see the situation changing any time soon.
My own cousin (ashamed to say) whos 34 now hasnt worked since he was 18.Hes just a bone idle lump but, for some reason the DSS keep paying him to be like this as well as his wife and pay towards there 2 kids. A few years ago now , they even built him a new detached "eco" house- Special heat retaining glass etc! I wish for the day they say to him" pay your own way"
Sadly, dont think that will ever happen!
31 July 2007, 08:39 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not focusing on the wrong issue at all, Pete. I'm keeping the tone of the thread on topic. A lot of people claiming can work but won't! Wasters are claiming disability benefits because it's too easy.
**** knows where you're going with figures except you've appeared to confirm that because the figures say so, it's OK to allow claims from anybody who tries it on as it's not much of drain on resources. I'm aware of the figures but it matters not, morally it stinks.
Then you've gone off on one about money wasted on bureaucracy and errors within the system.
I guess it could go on but in the vain of the thread, too many wasters are bleeding the country dry.
**** knows where you're going with figures except you've appeared to confirm that because the figures say so, it's OK to allow claims from anybody who tries it on as it's not much of drain on resources. I'm aware of the figures but it matters not, morally it stinks.
Then you've gone off on one about money wasted on bureaucracy and errors within the system.
I guess it could go on but in the vain of the thread, too many wasters are bleeding the country dry.
No, the point made was that there is a massive problem with people claiming disability benefit under false pretences. As I have shown, this is simply not the case.
I have not said that is ok to falsely claim, indeed, I said it was reprehensible. However, it is not the problem you seem to think it is in terms of finances.
The reason I have talked about beareaucracy and red tape, is that, again, as the figures show, that costs you more as a tax payer than fradulent claims do.
As for a "lot of people claiming can work but don't" It's no good just saying that without anything to back it up. Anecdotal "I saw bloke the other day" evidence is completely worthless. I prefer to base my opnions on fact, and not the press. How many people ar eout of work? How many people are claiming? How long does the average claim take? Waht steps are in place to get people off benefits? What is the total benefit budget? Has is risen out of step with population?
I'm not saying there arent people claiming, I am just sayin I don't know how big the problem is, and neither does the original poster, because all he is going on is what he reads in the paper.
31 July 2007, 08:42 AM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you people question anything?
31 July 2007, 09:00 AM
#52
No, the point made was that there is a massive problem with people claiming disability benefit under false pretences. As I have shown, this is simply not the case.
I have not said that is ok to falsely claim, indeed, I said it was reprehensible. However, it is not the problem you seem to think it is in terms of finances.
The reason I have talked about beareaucracy and red tape, is that, again, as the figures show, that costs you more as a tax payer than fradulent claims do.
As for a "lot of people claiming can work but don't" It's no good just saying that without anything to back it up. Anecdotal "I saw bloke the other day" evidence is completely worthless. I prefer to base my opnions on fact, and not the press. How many people ar eout of work? How many people are claiming? How long does the average claim take? Waht steps are in place to get people off benefits? What is the total benefit budget? Has is risen out of step with population?
I'm not saying there arent people claiming, I am just sayin I don't know how big the problem is, and neither does the original poster, because all he is going on is what he reads in the paper.
I have not said that is ok to falsely claim, indeed, I said it was reprehensible. However, it is not the problem you seem to think it is in terms of finances.
The reason I have talked about beareaucracy and red tape, is that, again, as the figures show, that costs you more as a tax payer than fradulent claims do.
As for a "lot of people claiming can work but don't" It's no good just saying that without anything to back it up. Anecdotal "I saw bloke the other day" evidence is completely worthless. I prefer to base my opnions on fact, and not the press. How many people ar eout of work? How many people are claiming? How long does the average claim take? Waht steps are in place to get people off benefits? What is the total benefit budget? Has is risen out of step with population?
I'm not saying there arent people claiming, I am just sayin I don't know how big the problem is, and neither does the original poster, because all he is going on is what he reads in the paper.
Britain's welfare budget has escalated to over a £120 billion ($190 billion) a year, or roughly one-third of government spending in recent years under labour
Doesn't it give you a nice feeling paying all that money so those who cant be bothered to work can get by bless em
31 July 2007, 09:06 AM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what proportion of that is on fraudulent claims? And what proportion is on people that genuinely need help?
What is the government doing to try and reduce that amount.
See, the next time a Labour candidate knocks at your door, you can absolutely batter him with facts and figures and leave them in a whirl
31 July 2007, 09:09 AM
#54
I had to vent this. When are we going to stop paying people to do nothing? The whole country looks like poo and we're handing out cheques to people who won't work for a living. For years now the word about our push-over attitude and tolerance for plain old laziness has been spreading all over the world. "You get a free ride in good old Blighty.....". And then all I hear is complaints about the massive rise in immigration...
Here's a rough idea...
It's thursday. Gary is unemployed. Every thrusday, Gary has to go down to his local DSS to re-apply for a week of unemployment benefit. Gary gets to the front of the queue, and is promptly handed his weekly "Allowance-Seekers Work Plan" and his bus and train pass and his lunch tokens.
Thursday: Job-seeking day
Friday: 8.30am-5.30pm Rubbish collection, Romford Town Centre
Saturday: Off
Sunday: Off
Monday: 8.30am-5.30pm Graffitti removal, Hemel Hempstead
Tuesday: 8.30am-5.30pm Street cleaning, A40 Ealing
Wednesday: 8.30am-5.30pm Helper duties, M1 Roadworks
Thursday: Report back to DSS with work certificates for £80.00 cheque.
Either get a job or do this, otherwise...no money.
Unless the people are bloody disabled, make them do work that nobody wants to do or help do work we can't get done due to a lack of resources ffs.
Make it nice and difficult for crap money too, so they will want to find a better job and word will get out that the UK doesn't give everyone a free ride anymore.
And maybe as a side-effect, just maybe, daddy will have to work for a living, daddy will learn that noone gives you a free ride, daddy will start taking some pride in himself, and then maybe daddy will be more concerned about what his two sons Chav One and Chav Two are getting up to and why they're not at school.
Is that a bit extreme? Feel free to slate away......
Here's a rough idea...
It's thursday. Gary is unemployed. Every thrusday, Gary has to go down to his local DSS to re-apply for a week of unemployment benefit. Gary gets to the front of the queue, and is promptly handed his weekly "Allowance-Seekers Work Plan" and his bus and train pass and his lunch tokens.
Thursday: Job-seeking day
Friday: 8.30am-5.30pm Rubbish collection, Romford Town Centre
Saturday: Off
Sunday: Off
Monday: 8.30am-5.30pm Graffitti removal, Hemel Hempstead
Tuesday: 8.30am-5.30pm Street cleaning, A40 Ealing
Wednesday: 8.30am-5.30pm Helper duties, M1 Roadworks
Thursday: Report back to DSS with work certificates for £80.00 cheque.
Either get a job or do this, otherwise...no money.
Unless the people are bloody disabled, make them do work that nobody wants to do or help do work we can't get done due to a lack of resources ffs.
Make it nice and difficult for crap money too, so they will want to find a better job and word will get out that the UK doesn't give everyone a free ride anymore.
And maybe as a side-effect, just maybe, daddy will have to work for a living, daddy will learn that noone gives you a free ride, daddy will start taking some pride in himself, and then maybe daddy will be more concerned about what his two sons Chav One and Chav Two are getting up to and why they're not at school.
Is that a bit extreme? Feel free to slate away......
Trouble is there's millions of people who would be worse off if they started work, and the government still hasn't found an effective answer to this. While it's easier and more lucrative to be on the dole and take a minimum wage job (which is still twice what I was earning 10 years ago!), people are going to take the easy option.
I deal with supported housing services for people who genuinly have problems and need help. Some would be capable of work, but would loose their menefire, and have to pay their rent and support charges. There's no way they could do that.
I'm sure most countries have come up with a fair system which supports those who need it, and encourages work.
31 July 2007, 09:34 AM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trouble is there's millions of people who would be worse off if they started work, and the government still hasn't found an effective answer to this. While it's easier and more lucrative to be on the dole and take a minimum wage job (which is still twice what I was earning 10 years ago!), people are going to take the easy option.
How would you go about changing it though? It's a very difficult position we have gotten into and not an easy one to get out of.
31 July 2007, 09:34 AM
#56
So why was there a local councillor on a bbc radio show bounding those stats around, perhaps if i were as wise as you I would have taken it up at the time. You are obviously looking for an arguement with someone which is why your first tack was to call me a ***** rather than constructively critisise my comment. Yes I understand that you cant always see by looking at the person. I was trying to say the whole disabled criteria seems very lax in my opinion and as stated before I am entitled to one also.
As for Blue badges, generally they're given to people who have mobility problems which make the use of public transport difficult. You can be registered as disabled (or for that matter just tick the box on the sensus form) for many different things, such as mental health problems. Most wouldn't get you a blue badge though.
I have heard that there's a huge market in stolen blue badges, expecially in London (exemption from congestion charge)
31 July 2007, 11:13 AM
#57
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I'm not going to do that. It was a rant based on principle, spawned by the layabout attitude of a number of benefit seekers of which I am aware. It is an example of the "get anything you can for free, just don't contribute" attitude of more young people than you might think.
I am going to take a break from this thread and try to think of a new one to get you going....
31 July 2007, 11:22 AM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anecdotal evidence is worthless (aka Worthless Anecdotal Non Knowledge - or W.A.N.K.)
You keep lining 'em up, and i'll keep hitting out the park
31 July 2007, 11:30 AM
#59
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one more time....that's why it's a RANT, not actual political policy. it wasn't a SERIOUS proposition. it was a rant. for fun.
you're VERY serious, aren't you?
keep hitting them "out of the park". only one problem with that, there seems to be little point in trying vehemently to prove one person in a conversation wrong if that person is and has been taking the p*ss from the very beginning.
i've created a monster!!!!!
come on mate, lighten up. if i was making a serious political statement or proposal the OP would have been much different, no?