Reminder Secure

Starved to Death...

This thread is being watched by 1 person
OldMaster is off-line
01 March 2014 14:33
OldMaster
Photographer
OldMaster
Location
United Kingdom
Hertfordshire
Harpenden

...."Need to save money to pay for "other" people that may "visit" this free for some country"..

If this is a crass xenophobic reference to our immigrants, not only is it tabloid trash but it is also wrong.

The immigrant workers pay far more into the system than they ever take out and they actually are a considerable benefit to GDP..aside from the fact that many work in the NHS and care professions in jobs that frankly either UK citizens wont do or aren't capable of doing to the same standard?

But I guess some will keep banging the rocks together...it seems Doncaster might be one of the centres for the Neanderthal?

"Sort of reply to expect from a southern softie"..I rest my case if this is the best negligibly intelligent response this person can manage?

The actual OP is indeed a sad indictment of this "arms length from the government" agency that has been put in place to withdraw benefits from those that need them most. I was delighted to read that they are turning down the opportunity to destroy peoples lives for another term, because, bless them, some of them have been receiving death threats..too good for them.

I would love to know what their CE pays himself whilst they are telling terminal cancer victims they could squeeze in a few months more work before they die. SCUM.


Lysander is off-lineSilver Member
01 March 2014 17:01
Lysander
Photographer
Lysander
Location
United Kingdom
West Midlands
Wolverhampton

It's easy to blame ATOS, [ I've been through the assessment mill twice so far ], but the government, [it doesn't matter whether you refer to the last one or the current one ], has been cutting spending where ever they can.
The whole point of using arms-length contracts is that they don't have to use civil service contracts which offer work protection and [reduced compared to the past] pension rights. Hello zero-hour contracts.
It also allows them to shift the blame. [ Bad ATOS, you did what the DWP told you to do, bad DWP, you did what the Cabinet told you to do ].
In a few years time, when everyone is blaming G4S or whoever holds the contract, they'll just shift the contract to another company, KFC or Kwik-Fit.
Governments are never afraid of an apathetic or complacent electorate but they can be rattled by an active and determined one.
"I would rather be Schroedinger's Cat than one of Pavlov's Dogs."


Tony Stephenson is off-line
03 March 2014 11:34
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
Location
United Kingdom
East Yorkshire
Driffield

Tragic is one word for it! 

However, there are lots of genuinely'disabled people who I've known or know who do work for a living but in certain quarters, once someone is in receipt of disabilty benefit it seems any form of re-assessment as to whether one is fit or not to do some form of work at some point is met with hostility, particularly from the left.. Not all disabilities are permanent and not all disabilities prevent people from doing some form of work so there has to be some form of re-evaluation balance.

Over the years I've also known quite a number of claimants who were 'supposedly' physically disabled, receiving all the benefits, cars etc, yet they were equally as active as myself...they're the ones spoiling it for the genuine claimants.

To be blunt ...there was **** all wrong with them that removing their benefits wouldn't have put right and before anyone chimes in asking if I'm a doctor, I knew these people personally and all were supposed suffering from 'bad backs' yet they could in most cases, do some physically activities that I couldn't - their biggest problem was their aversion to working for a living and knew every trick in the book on how to avoid doing so.
One even had a 4 x 4 as a mobility vehicle....so that he could get his scuba diving equipment in and out more easily!
My partner's sister is registered as nearly blind yet she moved to London, went to university, studied hard and became a  lawyer and is now working full time....she could have sat at home, claimed benefits being registered as disabled, but instead chose to work.

There's nothing wrong with reviewing a claimant's continued entitlement to receive disability benefit providing it's done fairly and proportionately - clearly in this case it wasn't done correctly and the poor chap who was clearly suffering from serious mental health issues was failed miserably.

It's much easier to identify someone with a genuine physial disability, but often far harder to identfy those with with genuine mental health issues...these are the vulnerable people who need protecting in our society with a better level of advocacy to speak out for and protect them in these situations.

This and any government has a duty to reduce fraudulent claims from the taxpayers money... it's who they employ to carry out the evaluations here that is the problem and why this case was so tragic.


www.le-femme.co.uk


Matt Harper is off-line
03 March 2014 12:57
mattharper
Photographer
mattharper
Location
United Kingdom
Devon
Paignton

Quote from stolenfaces
.................... If a company can't afford to pay their workers they are not viable and shouldn't be propped up by stealth subsidies.




better close them down then, so the the then EX-EMPLOYEES can be totally dependent on the state.

One can always rely on you to come out with the most ridiculous comments


Neil Anderson is off-line
03 March 2014 13:11
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from mattharper
better close them down then, so the the then EX-EMPLOYEES can be totally dependent on the state.



One can always rely on you to come out with the most ridiculous comments



Where do you draw the line then, how much state subsidy should a failing business get, presumably you support the DWP's attempts to supply staff to people like Poundland as free labour. Surprisingly (if you're a bit simple, it's surprising) wages are driven down further and the owners of the companies pay themselves more, and their tax advisers more.

If a company pays a decent wage, how can they compete with one receiving a taypayer subsidy unless they too reduce wages. If you're saying that capitalism doesn't work then let's not pretend it does. If you want all companies to be eligible for hidden subsidies, why not admit that the system has failed and embrace state ownership.

Of course the ex-employees you talk of are already totally dependent on the state, if they rely on the state to pay their rent.

ps Even Osbourne has been calling for the minimum wage to be increased for this reason.
Like any dealer he was watching for the card that is so high and wild he'll never need to deal another...


Matt Harper is off-line
03 March 2014 13:41
mattharper
Photographer
mattharper
Location
United Kingdom
Devon
Paignton

Quote from stolenfaces
Where do you draw the line then, how much state subsidy should a failing business get, presumably you support the DWP's attempts to supply staff to people like Poundland as free labour. Surprisingly (if you're a bit simple, it's surprising) wages are driven down further and the owners of the companies pay themselves more, and their tax advisers more. If a company pays a decent wage, how can they compete with one receiving a taypayer subsidy unless they too reduce wages. If you're saying that capitalism doesn't work then let's not pretend it does. If you want all companies to be eligible for hidden subsidies, why not admit that the system has failed and embrace state ownership. Of course the ex-employees you talk of are already totally dependent on the state, if they rely on the state to pay their rent. ps Even Osbourne has been calling for the minimum wage to be increased for this reason.



Honestly?
I don't know where to draw the line, it is almost impossible to say, everyone will disagree, even if it is possible for anyone to say where, then justify the decision. 
There is no easy answer.   The obvious and most easy is to give everyone on tax credits and/or receiving housing benefit a pay rise, one sufficient for them to afford to live.

Two problems arise, how much is "afford to live"?  Do we include mobile phone accounts, Sky TV, smoking, drinking, luxury items, cars,  luxury clothing and the real bad one, the real double effect of the pay rises, all other staff will want a rise to maintain the status difference between the unqualified labour and the skilled and  the massive effect this would have on inflation.  No matter what party is in government, the knock on effects would cause utter mayhem. 

Left wing, help everyone, right wing, help no one;   neither solves the problem and what is worse, as I have mentioned a few times over the last year or so, if we think the 2008 to 2011 crash was bad and damaged us all, wait for the big one, the inevitable massive crash that will level everyone and everything, the one that means all this consumerism will have to stop and we will have to live sustainable lives, such as people did until around 1950.   We have all become far too greedy and expect too much.  The economy cannot support this level of consumerism and provide the public services everyone seems to want and demand. 

It's catch 22, short of a miracle, things will go on as they are, people struggling, while others appear to be doing so well.  One day, things will change and it will be utter chaos; crime will be rife and the only answer then will be armed forces on the streets.   Scary thought, but it has to happen one day. 


Neil Anderson is off-line
03 March 2014 17:57
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from mattharper
Honestly?

I don't know where to draw the line, it is almost impossible to say, everyone will disagree, even if it is possible for anyone to say where, then justify the decision. 

There is no easy answer.   The obvious and most easy is to give everyone on tax credits and/or receiving housing benefit a pay rise, one sufficient for them to afford to live.



Two problems arise, how much is "afford to live"?  Do we include mobile phone accounts, Sky TV, smoking, drinking, luxury items, cars,  luxury clothing and the real bad one, the real double effect of the pay rises, all other staff will want a rise to maintain the status difference between the unqualified labour and the skilled and  the massive effect this would have on inflation.  No matter what party is in government, the knock on effects would cause utter mayhem. 



Left wing, help everyone, right wing, help no one;   neither solves the problem and what is worse, as I have mentioned a few times over the last year or so, if we think the 2008 to 2011 crash was bad and damaged us all, wait for the big one, the inevitable massive crash that will level everyone and everything, the one that means all this consumerism will have to stop and we will have to live sustainable lives, such as people did until around 1950.   We have all become far too greedy and expect too much.  The economy cannot support this level of consumerism and provide the public services everyone seems to want and demand. 



It's catch 22, short of a miracle, things will go on as they are, people struggling, while others appear to be doing so well.  One day, things will change and it will be utter chaos; crime will be rife and the only answer then will be armed forces on the streets.   Scary thought, but it has to happen one day. 



No it isn't difficult. There are two solutions one is to run a capitalist society properly for business with a reasonable welfare state (where your NI contributions are actually invested like an insurance premium for your hard times and pension) or secondly a proper socialist state where the state (ie you and me) own Royal Mail, The Railways, British Gas, National Grid etc. so if they 'overcharge' us we get the profits rather than someone in the Virgin Isles or France or USA), build/buy council houses and impose rent controls...etc

If you put the minimum wage up to £10 an hour, would companies go out of business? or would the people who had the extra money in their wage packets go and spend it and create a huge boom where everyone was better off ?
Apparently much of the current recovery is down to PPI payouts...
Like any dealer he was watching for the card that is so high and wild he'll never need to deal another...


 jivago Photographic is off-line
03 March 2014 19:23
jivago
Photographer
jivago
Location
United Kingdom
Highland
Highlands & Cheshire

"The welfare dependents the government loves? Rich landowners" (Headline Quoted)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/rich-landowners-farmers-welfare-nfu-defra

http://www.jivagophoto.com/


Colin H is off-lineSilver Member
04 March 2014 07:33
thelook
Photographer
thelook
Location
United Kingdom
Berkshire


Quote from tonycsm
Tragic is one word for it! 



However, there are lots of genuinely'disabled people who I've known or know who do work for a living but in certain quarters, once someone is in receipt of disabilty benefit it seems any form of re-assessment as to whether one is fit or not to do some form of work at some point is met with hostility, particularly from the left.. Not all disabilities are permanent and not all disabilities prevent people from doing some form of work so there has to be some form of re-evaluation balance.



Over the years I've also known quite a number of claimants who were 'supposedly' physically disabled, receiving all the benefits, cars etc, yet they were equally as active as myself...they're the ones spoiling it for the genuine claimants.



To be blunt ...there was **** all wrong with them that removing their benefits wouldn't have put right and before anyone chimes in asking if I'm a doctor, I knew these people personally and all were supposed suffering from 'bad backs' yet they could in most cases, do some physically activities that I couldn't - their biggest problem was their aversion to working for a living and knew every trick in the book on how to avoid doing so.

One even had a 4 x 4 as a mobility vehicle....so that he could get his scuba diving equipment in and out more easily!

My partner's sister is registered as nearly blind yet she moved to London, went to university, studied hard and became a  lawyer and is now working full time....she could have sat at home, claimed benefits being registered as disabled, but instead chose to work.



There's nothing wrong with reviewing a claimant's continued entitlement to receive disability benefit providing it's done fairly and proportionately - clearly in this case it wasn't done correctly and the poor chap who was clearly suffering from serious mental health issues was failed miserably.



It's much easier to identify someone with a genuine physial disability, but often far harder to identfy those with with genuine mental health issues...these are the vulnerable people who need protecting in our society with a better level of advocacy to speak out for and protect them in these situations.



This and any government has a duty to reduce fraudulent claims from the taxpayers money... it's who they employ to carry out the evaluations here that is the problem and why this case was so tragic.









Nicely argued..

I've always thought that we should stop all imigration except for those who need protection. As has been said here immigrants are doing jobs the 'British' population won't do. Thing is, when those jobs are not being done, those who choose not to work would have no excuse and employers would have to put wages up to attract staff...

Guess to some of you this will be seen as Racist. I just feel it's common sense in a Country that has no money and does not have enough space, Schools or Hospitals. Oh and I'm perfectly aware that taxing big business would probably rake in more money and that not all those on Benefits are avoiding work.
When the world whispers 'give up, a fool will say 'I'll give it one more try'.....


Neil Anderson is off-line
04 March 2014 08:38
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from thelook


Nicely argued..

I've always thought that we should stop all imigration except for those who need protection. As has been said here immigrants are doing jobs the 'British' population won't do. Thing is, when those jobs are not being done, those who choose not to work would have no excuse and employers would have to put wages up to attract staff...

Guess to some of you this will be seen as Racist. I just feel it's common sense in a Country that has no money and does not have enough space, Schools or Hospitals. Oh and I'm perfectly aware that taxing big business would probably rake in more money and that not all those on Benefits are avoiding work.



I just find your 'arguments' uninformed and simple-minded - doubtless you will be voting for UKIP.
The vast majority of 'Immigrants' pay their taxes and are net contributors to the exchequer (as they are young and fit). People who think that workers should be paid a pittance so that ordinary people can afford to eat in a restaurant (for example) are living beyond their means and their life-styles are being subsidised my the misery of those on minimum wage or below.
Immigrants, people on benefits, the EU, Trade Unions, energy companies, Ralph Milliband etc, etc... are all vilified by the Daily Mail, so that people don't actually need to question the competence of this government, the greed of the rich and the abject failure of this society to offer normal people a decent life.

Like any dealer he was watching for the card that is so high and wild he'll never need to deal another...



24 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
alishaa Cody Emmiew89 Michelledefeo1 zavego
ansonphotography bobmac chasJ dbphoto digitalmood ElegantCaptures ignite keltica magpie1 modelboutique philippahh photomart Robinsky severndigital stevegosh steveh32 Stewart1988
barlowstudios WeerQwerty