Chronically ill Dad killed himself after being declared fit for work Watch

TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 week ago
#61
(Original post by Dez)
You did read the part where he was physically incapable of working, right?
You read the part where the DWP decided otherwise, after considering the evidence? And then rejected the claimant's appeal? On what basis exactly have you concluded that the claimant is correct, and the Department is wrong?

You, like the rest of us, have read a very brief and entirely one-sided summary of the case published by the local press. It is absolutely ridiculous to launch such strident attacks on, not only the process, but this particular decision on so little information.

There is a reason why there is an assessment, and there is a reason why there is an appeals process. We assess claims because we cannot simply rely on claimants' own say-so that they require the money; we allow appeals because claimants must have sufficient opportunity to make their case for it. He had this opportunity here.
1
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 week ago
#62
Obviously need to mark the "I, Daniel Blake" BBC showing by doing some fo that ****.
1
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 week ago
#63
That's one way to make sure you're not fit for work.
1
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 week ago
#64
The posts which imply "Oh well, that's sad but welfare does not work like that" or "Sad but none should be paying for him" or something similar are really disturbing. I hope the people who have made such posts will not have to face a situation like this man, being unable to work for genuine reasons and then told by the welfare system they can't help you. If they ever do find themselves in such a situation, expect no sympathy fro me
4
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 week ago
#65
(Original post by The RAR)
I hope the people who have made such posts will not have to face a situation like this man
I find I feel oppositely.
2
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 week ago
#66
(Original post by Dez)
I know right, how dare these people assume the right to not starve, live on the streets, or freeze to death. Imagine the nerve. :rolleyes:
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
Does human life hold no value to you? Don't you think that we as a society should care for those of our citizens who are, for no fault of their own, unable to provide for themselves? Should they just be left to die?

(Original post by The RAR)
The posts which imply "Oh well, that's sad but welfare does not work like that" or "Sad but none should be paying for him" or something similar are really disturbing. I hope the people who have made such posts will not have to face a situation like this man, being unable to work for genuine reasons and then told by the welfare system they can't help you. If they ever do find themselves in such a situation, expect no sympathy fro me


A nice surprise on a site that had for so long condemned me for being a "chav" just because I was homeless for a little bit
Last edited by Bang Outta Order; 1 week ago
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 week ago
#67
(Original post by The RAR)
The posts which imply "Oh well, that's sad but welfare does not work like that" or "Sad but none should be paying for him" or something similar are really disturbing. I hope the people who have made such posts will not have to face a situation like this man, being unable to work for genuine reasons and then told by the welfare system they can't help you. If they ever do find themselves in such a situation, expect no sympathy fro me
I agree
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 week ago
#68
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
You read the part where the DWP decided otherwise, after considering the evidence? And then rejected the claimant's appeal? On what basis exactly have you concluded that the claimant is correct, and the Department is wrong?

You, like the rest of us, have read a very brief and entirely one-sided summary of the case published by the local press. It is absolutely ridiculous to launch such strident attacks on, not only the process, but this particular decision on so little information.

There is a reason why there is an assessment, and there is a reason why there is an appeals process. We assess claims because we cannot simply rely on claimants' own say-so that they require the money; we allow appeals because claimants must have sufficient opportunity to make their case for it. He had this opportunity here.
He had the opportunity to appeal but sadly he did not take it. He killed himself before his appeal was heard. We will never know whether he would have won his appeal.

His executors can carry on the appeal for the period from his loss of benefit to his death and will almost certainly win because the tribunal now will have an additional piece of evidence.

He was entitled to benefit even if he failed the normal assessment if treating him as fit for work would have had a substantial risk to his mental health. That question was hypothetical when the decision was made and will still be hypothetical for the tribunal because the tribunal must look forward from the date of the DWP decision. However the tribunal is entitled to take into account evidence of his actual suicide in deciding whether he was a suicide risk if he was found fit for work. Moreover, the question is not “could the assessor have known he was a suicide risk?” but was he actually a suicide risk.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by nulli tertius; 1 week ago
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 week ago
#69
(Original post by nulli tertius)
He was entitled to benefit even if he failed the normal assessment if treating him as fit for work would have had a substantial risk to his mental health. That question was hypothetical when the decision was made and will still be hypothetical for the tribunal because the tribunal must look forward from the date of the DWP decision. However the tribunal is entitled to take into account evidence of his actual suicide in deciding whether he was a suicide risk if he was found fit for work. Moreover, the question is not “could the assessor have known he was a suicide risk?” but was he actually a suicide risk.
I'd thought that -- in the sense, if he'd had his MH diagnosed and communicated his difficulty to DWP, they might have kept him on ESA. LCW+WR here he comes; wonder if it'd be enough to cover his debts. If he had appealed, that's no easy fix -- 9+ months wait to get to the tribunal.

Tbh, I have never seen the risk to health test successfully used. How often/easily do DWP give that and what type of evidence do they require?
Last edited by Notoriety; 1 week ago
0
reply
Pathway
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 week ago
#70
(Original post by Notoriety)
I'd thought that -- in the sense, if he'd had his MH diagnosed and communicated his difficulty to DWP, they might have kept him on ESA. LCW+WR here he comes; wonder if it'd be enough to cover his debts. If he had appealed, that's no easy fix -- 9+ months wait to get to the tribunal.

Tbh, I have never seen the risk to health test successfully used. How often/easily do DWP give that and what type of evidence do they require?
A friend of mine had it applied to her but only after mandatory reconsideration.

My assessor also phoned my GP whilst I was in the room due to me being a suicide risk but that's not the descriptor that I ended up being awarded ESA on (some other support group descriptor was relevant so it was more formality that she phoned my GP).

I dunno if that's what you're asking, but I have seen it sort of happen. :dontknow:
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 week ago
#71
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
You read the part where the DWP decided otherwise, after considering the evidence? And then rejected the claimant's appeal? On what basis exactly have you concluded that the claimant is correct, and the Department is wrong?
More than half of the DWPs supposed assesments are overturned on appeal. Their system is fundamentally broken, likely deliberately so. On the balance of probabilities, there is a strong chance that this particular decision was bogus.

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
You, like the rest of us, have read a very brief and entirely one-sided summary of the case published by the local press. It is absolutely ridiculous to launch such strident attacks on, not only the process, but this particular decision on so little information.
There's plenty of evidence of the DWP's processes being flawed. You'd either have to be wilfully ignorant or just plain stupid not to see this. Their system receives regular critism from everyone involved in it.

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
There is a reason why there is an assessment, and there is a reason why there is an appeals process. We assess claims because we cannot simply rely on claimants' own say-so that they require the money; we allow appeals because claimants must have sufficient opportunity to make their case for it. He had this opportunity here.
Correct. But just as a kangaroo court does not satisfy the need of justice, the DWP do not satisfy the need of fair, balanced welfare. They are not fit for purpose.
0
reply
TommyDH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 week ago
#72
(Original post by Rock Fan)
This was even though the Doctors said he was too ill to work.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...GlRECWNf0-gMYA
This is really sad, and I can't help but be cynical that it isn't deliberate. I'm convinced these assessors are under orders by the Tories to push people to suicide.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 week ago
#73
(Original post by Notoriety)
I'd thought that -- in the sense, if he'd had his MH diagnosed and communicated his difficulty to DWP, they might have kept him on ESA. LCW+WR here he comes; wonder if it'd be enough to cover his debts. If he had appealed, that's no easy fix -- 9+ months wait to get to the tribunal.

Tbh, I have never seen the risk to health test successfully used. How often/easily do DWP give that and what type of evidence do they require?
The DWP gives it very rarely and, at least in ATOS days, an individual assessor needed management approval to give it, which drove a coach and horses through the idea that the assessment represented an individual assessor's professional judgement.

Tribunals award it fairly frequently and not just to suicide risks.

There are people with a track record of failure to cope with a little voluntary work. There are people where a lot of time and effort has been invested in getting them off the booze or clean of drugs and they are teetering on a knife edge. Most people with heart conditions and the like are encouraged to be active, but there are a few who really should be wrapped in cotton wool.

Finally, Regs 29 and 35 are the only bits of the entire system where actual employability is relevant. There are a few people where there is actually no job left that they have the skills to do which they are physically capable of doing.

If, for one reason or another (not necessarily health reasons), you can't say, monitor a CCTV system, work in a call centre, shop or cashiering booth (say in a carpark or amusement arcade), or look after a child, you are left with manual labour of one sort or another and if the claimant lacks the physical ability to do that without risk to health, Reg 29 is inevitable
0
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 week ago
#74
(Original post by The RAR)
The posts which imply "Oh well, that's sad but welfare does not work like that" or "Sad but none should be paying for him" or something similar are really disturbing. I hope the people who have made such posts will not have to face a situation like this man, being unable to work for genuine reasons and then told by the welfare system they can't help you. If they ever do find themselves in such a situation, expect no sympathy fro me
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
I find I feel oppositely.
The lack of empathy and respect for human life is disturbing. All the same, if it were in my power, I wouldn't put these people through the same situation, and if they were in the same situation, I'd have sympathy for them and wouldn't mind my tax money being spent to keep them afloat. They are the products of their backgrounds and indoctrinations, and simply haven't sat down and considered their views objectively and critically in the light of what's actually going on in today's society. It's a common enough headspace that I can't hold it against them. I have no doubt that they can become better people.
1
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 week ago
#75
(Original post by TommyDH)
This is really sad, and I can't help but be cynical that it isn't deliberate. I'm convinced these assessors are under orders by the Tories to push people to suicide.
What the Tories have done to this country is appalling. All the same, if you truly believe that veganism is a deliberate, organised plot to turn men into weaklings and that the ''fit for work'' assessors are engaged in a deliberate, organised plot to push poor, sick people towards suicide, you're starting to come across as some kind of paranoid schizophrenic.
0
reply
TommyDH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 week ago
#76
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
What the Tories have done to this country is appalling. All the same, if you truly believe that veganism is a deliberate, organised plot to turn men into weaklings and that the ''fit for work'' assessors are engaged in a deliberate, organised plot to push poor, sick people towards suicide, you're starting to come across as some kind of paranoid schizophrenic.
1. Explain synthetic environmental estrogens. Why did they choose estrogen to poison and pollute us all? Why not androgens? What purpose does putting estrogen in plastics, pesticides and the water supply serve anyway if not a deliberate poisoning of men? Give me one good reason they were put there and what use they serve, and I'll admit I'm wrong.

2. Yeah, okay. Total coincidence that suicides are doubling and tripling since the Tories. I guess those calling for an inquiry and to prosecute ministers are also paranoid schizophrenics! The Tories are clearly killing off as many sick & disabled as possible.
Last edited by TommyDH; 1 week ago
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 week ago
#77
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
The lack of empathy and respect for human life is disturbing. All the same, if it were in my power, I wouldn't put these people through the same situation, and if they were in the same situation, I'd have sympathy for them and wouldn't mind my tax money being spent to keep them afloat. They are the products of their backgrounds and indoctrinations, and simply haven't sat down and considered their views objectively and critically in the light of what's actually going on in today's society. It's a common enough headspace that I can't hold it against them. I have no doubt that they can become better people.
BY all means if I had my way there would be a universal safety net thatb protected everyone, even right wing knob heads. But since I do not have my way I can atleast enjoy the thought of the scumbags who help bring these situations about meeting some just diserts.
0
reply
AdamGreenYES!
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 week ago
#78
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
What the Tories have done to this country is appalling. All the same, if you truly believe that veganism is a deliberate, organised plot to turn men into weaklings and that the ''fit for work'' assessors are engaged in a deliberate, organised plot to push poor, sick people towards suicide, you're starting to come across as some kind of paranoid schizophrenic.
No, that is exactly what ALL governments have been working towards for the last fifty years. Because the governments are controlled by the 'shadow government' i.e. various corporate/international think tanks that are hell bent on world government, global eugenics, destruction of native peoples...

Rather than a paranoid schizophrenic (the DSM manual is bogus zio-nazi rubbish) he would actually be highly aware of the reality of the situation.
0
reply
Picnic1
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 week ago
#79
Neo-liberalism and welfarism cannot be combined as a society's policies for too long without understandably annoying hard working natives.

If we had a far more properly socialistic country then hard working natives would have less reason to be annoyed (although still reasons to be annoyed)..

By socialistic, I mean supporting the mostly white working / lower middle class people who helped build this country.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (89)
19.96%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (180)
40.36%
Nope, not that interesting (177)
39.69%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed