Inheritance


R

Robbie

mike said:
I've heard the same complaint about ESA med boards as every other though
the % failing seems higher. The principal of the DWP DM overruling the
GP etc based on their own examination is the key one and that's been
going on for a long long time.


One of the hsg estates I used to visit was described as one of the most
deprived in the country and qualified for some scheme or other for
regeneration. Some of the others were not much better, including the
one I grew up on.

Mike
It seems we all have worked on some rough estates, the one I used to
visit had a reputation as being one of the very worst in London with
murders and shootings on a regular basis. Many of the tower blocks on
that estate have since been knocked down and replaced by more modern
housing but the estate is still riddled with problems (and bullets).
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

mike

It seems we all have worked on some rough estates, the one I used to
visit had a reputation as being one of the very worst in London with
murders and shootings on a regular basis. Many of the tower blocks on
that estate have since been knocked down and replaced by more modern
housing but the estate is still riddled with problems (and bullets).
Must make the houses very draughty.

There are plenty of rough crime riddled estates to choose from!

Mike
 
M

mike

Suprised you see the PCA scheme as reasonable and fair. The same staff
at ATOS did the assessments in person - those staff you constantly
complain about, those staff you say aren't qualified. The same staff.
If they are capable of doing one type of assessment, why not another?

Changing the medical assessment presumes that the previous one was not
fit for purpose. Maybe it was - but Labour decided to change it.
Sounds like you visited some very tough council estates - down south
were they?

Martin <><

______________________________________________________
Think of it in terms of motoring laws, if the drink drive legal limit is
lowered, more people will fail. If you reduce the speed limit and add more
gatso cameras and police, more people will end up with points on their
licences, and so on. Its the same with the medical assessment, narrow the
scope of descriptors and increase the points needed to qualify and you end
up failing people that would have easily qualified using the old test. That
does not mean they are fully fit for work, it just means they have failed a
very unfair and biased medical assessment designed to fail people.
Interesting, you've gone from blaming unqualified staff at ATOS to the
test itself in a matter of days.

The test will not have been designed by the DWP, based on the brief
provided by ministers. It will have been fleshed out and turned into a
test and scoring system, approved by the ministers and given to ATOS.

Mike
 
N

Niteawk

mike said:
Interesting, you've gone from blaming unqualified staff at ATOS to the
test itself in a matter of days.
Not really, when I appeal I question all aspects of the assessment. Pointing
out that a nurse has written a medical report that is at odds with one
written by a doctor who is eminently more qualified is always a good way to
start, bear in mind there will be at least one doctor on the panel at
tribunal. Picking the bones out of the descriptors is the easy part.


The test will not have been designed by the DWP, based on the brief
provided by ministers. It will have been fleshed out and turned into a
test and scoring system, approved by the ministers and given to ATOS.
I know the government is ultimately responsible, once they pass something on
to the DWP it becomes their problem, the government has nothing to do with
it after that. All complaints are passed to the DWP and DM's who have the
power to revise decisions which they rarely ever do. Then the appeal process
starts etc.
 
N

Niteawk

Robbie said:
It seems we all have worked on some rough estates, the one I used to visit
had a reputation as being one of the very worst in London with murders and
shootings on a regular basis. Many of the tower blocks on that estate have
since been knocked down and replaced by more modern housing but the estate
is still riddled with problems (and bullets).
Indeed, but how many of us has witnessed a murder in broad daylight, and
just happened to be standing next to the man who comitted the crime, or
heard a loud bang like an explosion next to a tower block you were about to
enter, only to discover the body of a woman who just jumped from the 18th
floor, and week later you find out that you knew her husband but never
actually met the wife............when she was alive.............spooky. ;)
 
M

mike

Not really, when I appeal I question all aspects of the assessment.
Pointing out that a nurse has written a medical report that is at odds
with one written by a doctor who is eminently more qualified is always a
good way to start, bear in mind there will be at least one doctor on the
panel at tribunal. Picking the bones out of the descriptors is the easy
part.




I know the government is ultimately responsible, once they pass
something on to the DWP it becomes their problem, the government has
nothing to do with it after that. All complaints are passed to the DWP
and DM's who have the power to revise decisions which they rarely ever
do. Then the appeal process starts etc.
Not really - if the scoring system is to change that will be a policy
shift, that's government. Sure higher in the DWP they exert influence,
suggest changes, write papers and use stats to illustrate options and
push their viewpoint but gov set policy. The policy is to reduce the
number of people reliant on sickness benefits.

Mike

Mike
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Niteawk

mike said:
On 08/01/2011 19:05, Niteawk wrote:

Not really - if the scoring system is to change that will be a policy
shift, that's government. Sure higher in the DWP they exert influence,
suggest changes, write papers and use stats to illustrate options and push
their viewpoint but gov set policy.
I can't see them changing the scoring system or even thinking about it if
they are going to bring in Universal Credits.


The policy is to reduce the
number of people reliant on sickness benefits.
The only way our government can legitimately reduce the number of sick is to
improve living standards so fewer people become ill. The current policy
appears to be based on eugenics which was a policy used by Hitler to reduce
the weak and impure, only his methods were more drastic, the principle is
the same.
 
M

mike

I can't see them changing the scoring system or even thinking about it if
they are going to bring in Universal Credits.


The policy is to reduce the

The only way our government can legitimately reduce the number of sick
is to
improve living standards so fewer people become ill. The current policy
appears to be based on eugenics which was a policy used by Hitler to reduce
the weak and impure, only his methods were more drastic, the principle is
the same.
You do talk some absolute bullshit niteawk! The Nazis locked up and
killed the mentally ill and disabled not pay them benefits. It annoys
me intensley when people accuse governments or the police of being
Nazis. Firstly Nazis would take it as a compliment, secondly they would
have killed or beaten you to a pulp for opposing them.

If eugenics where being used people with numerous hereditary conditions
and the mentally ill would not be allowed to have kids. Paying the sick
and disabled DLA and sickness benefits is pretty much the opposite of
eugenics. Similarly encouraging the benefits class to breed by paying
them more benefits for every sprog is hardly eugenics. That you are
still here at all proves the gov isn't behaving like the Nazis.

Living standards have little to do with people becoming ill, how you
take care of yourself & the healthcare they get after has a lot to do
with it but you don't get ill from living without satellite TV, a car or
because you always have to wear a jumper at home.

It would be interesting to see how many are on DLA etc because of their
own actions (obesity, smoking , drug taking) Vs accidents (inc caused by
own stupidity!) Vs unavoidable conditions/illness.

When I used to visit I used to see a hell of a lot, possibly approaching
1 in 3 with conditions caused by drugs, alcohol and obesity but it could
just have been the nature of the claims. Once you get into the 50+
crowd it mainly just wear an tear.

Anyone know if such stats exist?

Mike
 
T

TJ

You do talk some absolute bullshit niteawk! The Nazis locked up and
killed the mentally ill and disabled not pay them benefits. It annoys me
intensley when people accuse governments or the police of being Nazis.
Firstly Nazis would take it as a compliment, secondly they would have
killed or beaten you to a pulp for opposing them.

If eugenics where being used people with numerous hereditary conditions
and the mentally ill would not be allowed to have kids. Paying the sick
and disabled DLA and sickness benefits is pretty much the opposite of
eugenics.
The problem being that the genuinely mentally ill/physically disabled
are increasingly being denied sickness related benefits and being dumped
on JSA instead,and the government is hell bent on making it harder for
the mentally ill/physically disabled to claim DLA.

Hardly the actions of a government with a benign and enlightened
attitude towards those with disabilities and illnesses.








Similarly encouraging the benefits class to breed by paying
them more benefits for every sprog is hardly eugenics. That you are
still here at all proves the gov isn't behaving like the Nazis.

Living standards have little to do with people becoming ill, how you
take care of yourself & the healthcare they get after has a lot to do
with it but you don't get ill from living without satellite TV, a car or
because you always have to wear a jumper at home.
There is a link between poverty/social class and mental illness.
http://www.cpementalhealth.com/content/1/1/14#IDAHKZYC

It would be interesting to see how many are on DLA etc because of their
own actions (obesity, smoking , drug taking) Vs accidents (inc caused by
own stupidity!) Vs unavoidable conditions/illness.
Dual diagnosis ie alcohol/drug addiction and severe mental illness is a
fairly common occurrence.

"Dual diagnosis is a combination of mental health problems and alcohol
or drug problems (‘substance misuse’)
ï‚· The reason why someone may develop a dual diagnosis depends on the
individual, but in many cases people use drugs or alcohol to ‘self- in
order to make symptoms of mental illness and side-effects of medication
easier to handle.

Taken from dual diagnosis fact sheet.
http://www.mentalhealthshop.org/products/rethink_publications/dual_diagnosis_facts.html#
 
R

Robbie

mike said:
You do talk some absolute bullshit niteawk! The Nazis locked up and
killed the mentally ill and disabled not pay them benefits. It annoys
me intensley when people accuse governments or the police of being
Nazis. Firstly Nazis would take it as a compliment, secondly they would
have killed or beaten you to a pulp for opposing them.

If eugenics where being used people with numerous hereditary conditions
and the mentally ill would not be allowed to have kids. Paying the sick
and disabled DLA and sickness benefits is pretty much the opposite of
eugenics. Similarly encouraging the benefits class to breed by paying
them more benefits for every sprog is hardly eugenics. That you are
still here at all proves the gov isn't behaving like the Nazis.

Living standards have little to do with people becoming ill, how you
take care of yourself & the healthcare they get after has a lot to do
with it but you don't get ill from living without satellite TV, a car or
because you always have to wear a jumper at home.

It would be interesting to see how many are on DLA etc because of their
own actions (obesity, smoking , drug taking) Vs accidents (inc caused by
own stupidity!) Vs unavoidable conditions/illness.

When I used to visit I used to see a hell of a lot, possibly approaching
1 in 3 with conditions caused by drugs, alcohol and obesity but it could
just have been the nature of the claims. Once you get into the 50+
crowd it mainly just wear an tear.

Anyone know if such stats exist?

Mike
The DWP site has a statistics section that breaks down various types of
claims by reason for claim

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=tabtool

It may take some digging through that part of the site to find what you
want though.
 
N

Niteawk

mike said:
On 09/01/2011 09:54, Niteawk wrote:


You do talk some absolute bullshit niteawk!
Thank you, I try my best, its nice to be recognised.



The Nazis locked up and killed the mentally ill and disabled not pay them
benefits.
I simply pointed out that the ESA policy has an air of eugenics about it
insofar as treating the sick goes, practically denying sickness exists and
manipulating the system to prevent paying benefits.



It annoys
me intensley when people accuse governments or the police of being Nazis.
Hitler was an elected member of government IIRC.



Firstly Nazis would take it as a compliment, secondly they would
have killed or beaten you to a pulp for opposing them.
Imposing conditions which are intended to fail those entitled to sickness
benefit is just as bad as beating them to a pulp, physically beating them to
a pulp is probably more humane. Whether you want to admit it or not, actions
like that kill people, they are the ones who end up jumping off buildings
and under trains because they can't cope any more.

If eugenics where being used people with numerous hereditary conditions
and the mentally ill would not be allowed to have kids. Paying the sick
and disabled DLA and sickness benefits is pretty much the opposite of
eugenics. Similarly encouraging the benefits class to breed by paying
them more benefits for every sprog is hardly eugenics. That you are still
here at all proves the gov isn't behaving like the Nazis.
They are using one element of eugenics which has been slightly modified to
avoid having to actually beat people I suppose, unless of course they
protest then the police can and do beat them to a pulp. One bloke was killed
at the G20 by a copper and he was not even involved with the protest. And
there are plenty of people in this country that are not allowed to have kids
by social services. Also the fact that I am still here proves nothing,
plenty of Jews survived the Nazis and are still around today to tell the
tale. As for the benefit class breeding on benefits, I can't believe you
said that, Adolf would be proud, if that does not smack of Naziism I don't
know what does. I really would like to see people like you in charge of MP's
expenses.


Living standards have little to do with people becoming ill, how you take
care of yourself & the healthcare they get after has a lot to do with it
but you don't get ill from living without satellite TV, a car or because
you always have to wear a jumper at home.
I have to disagree, living standards has everything to do with a healthy
life style. Its a know fact that people in more deprived areas have a lower
life expectancy that those who live in more affluent areas of society.

It would be interesting to see how many are on DLA etc because of their
own actions (obesity, smoking , drug taking) Vs accidents (inc caused by
own stupidity!) Vs unavoidable conditions/illness.
That is one view, it could also mean that those people are mentally ill and
not capable of taking care of themselves, they certainly won't have the
money to pay for healthy foods and gym facilities to keep fit.

When I used to visit I used to see a hell of a lot, possibly approaching 1
in 3 with conditions caused by drugs, alcohol and obesity but it could
just have been the nature of the claims. Once you get into the 50+ crowd
it mainly just wear an tear.
Exactly, the products of deprived areas, nothing to live for except the next
fix.
Anyone know if such stats exist?
Probably, I dare say our fat ass millionaire ministers will have at least 50
quangos working on it as we speak, all doing the same pointless non job at
great expense to the taxpayer.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

mike

Thank you, I try my best, its nice to be recognised.





I simply pointed out that the ESA policy has an air of eugenics about it
insofar as treating the sick goes, practically denying sickness exists and
manipulating the system to prevent paying benefits.



It annoys

Hitler was an elected member of government IIRC.



Firstly Nazis would take it as a compliment, secondly they would

Imposing conditions which are intended to fail those entitled to sickness
benefit is just as bad as beating them to a pulp, physically beating
them to
a pulp is probably more humane. Whether you want to admit it or not,
actions
like that kill people, they are the ones who end up jumping off buildings
and under trains because they can't cope any more.



They are using one element of eugenics which has been slightly modified to
avoid having to actually beat people I suppose, unless of course they
protest then the police can and do beat them to a pulp. One bloke was
killed
at the G20 by a copper and he was not even involved with the protest. And
there are plenty of people in this country that are not allowed to have
kids
by social services.
People banned from keeping kids have generally proven themselves unfit.
There will always be exceptions but that's what the legal system is for.

Also the fact that I am still here proves nothing,
plenty of Jews survived the Nazis and are still around today to tell the
tale. As for the benefit class breeding on benefits, I can't believe you
said that, Adolf would be proud, if that does not smack of Naziism I don't
know what does. I really would like to see people like you in charge of
MP's
expenses.
I'd LOVE to be in charge of MPs expenses ..... I don't even think it
would necessitate a move to London. Most benefit customers have to deal
with BDC's far removed. Pensioners get almost zero responce at JCP
offices so have to use the telephone/post for 99% of interactions.
I have to disagree, living standards has everything to do with a healthy
life style. Its a know fact that people in more deprived areas have a lower
life expectancy that those who live in more affluent areas of society.
Very simplistic to blame money, many of those deprived areas have lots
of violent crime & more takeaways!
That is one view, it could also mean that those people are mentally ill and
not capable of taking care of themselves, they certainly won't have the
money to pay for healthy foods and gym facilities to keep fit.
You can stay fit at home for far less than gym membership. Walking is
one of the best forms of exercise. That some people choose drugs is
theri own fault, plenty of people from rough neighbourhoods don't take them.
Exactly, the products of deprived areas, nothing to live for except the
next
fix.


Probably, I dare say our fat ass millionaire ministers will have at
least 50
quangos working on it as we speak, all doing the same pointless non job at
great expense to the taxpayer.
Is it pointless, understanding how people become reliant on a billion
pound a week benefit?

Mike
 
M

mart2306

You do talk some absolute bullshit niteawk!  The Nazis locked up and
killed the mentally ill and disabled not pay them benefits.  It annoys
me intensley when people accuse governments or the police of being
Nazis.  Firstly Nazis would take it as a compliment, secondly they would
have killed or beaten you to a pulp for opposing them.

If eugenics where being used people with numerous hereditary conditions
and the mentally ill would not be allowed to have kids. Paying the sick
and disabled DLA and sickness benefits is pretty much the opposite of
eugenics.  Similarly encouraging the benefits class to breed by paying
them more benefits for every sprog is hardly eugenics.  That you are
still here at all proves the gov isn't behaving like the Nazis.

Living standards have little to do with people becoming ill, how you
take care of yourself & the healthcare they get after has a lot to do
with it but you don't get ill from living without satellite TV, a car or
because you always have to wear a jumper at home.

It would be interesting to see how many are on DLA etc because of their
own actions (obesity, smoking , drug taking) Vs accidents (inc caused by
own stupidity!) Vs unavoidable conditions/illness.

When I used to visit I used to see a hell of a lot, possibly approaching
1 in 3 with conditions caused by drugs, alcohol and obesity but it could
just have been the nature of the claims.  Once you get into the 50+
crowd it mainly just wear an tear.

Anyone know if such stats exist?

Mike- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Ummm...I do get ill if I don't wear a jumper or other thick covering
at home. Thats with the heating on max.
One of my disabilities. Not that there's a benefit that covers the
extra costs involved.

Martin <><
 
N

Niteawk

Is it pointless, understanding how people become reliant on a billion
pound a week benefit?
Yes, it is pointless when you consider that the government has always
misrepresented unemployment figures, you can't believe a word they say. As
for understanding why so many people have become reliant on benefit, the
system we have does nothing to prepare them for worthwhile jobs. It is
designed to punish not help, treating people like prisoners, forcing them to
sit in rooms for months at a time doing mindless tasks and then you expect
them to work. 6 months of madness like that and all they will be fit for is
the local nut house.

Thats what I find really amusing about all this, the systems you have to
solve these problems is actually causing the problems you are trying to
solve. ;)
 
M

mart2306

Yes, it is pointless when you consider that the government has always
misrepresented unemployment figures, you can't believe a word they say. As
for understanding why so many people have become reliant on benefit, the
system we have does nothing to prepare them for worthwhile jobs. It is
designed to punish not help, treating people like prisoners, forcing themto
sit in rooms for months at a time doing mindless tasks and then you expect
them to work. 6 months of madness like that and all they will be fit for is
the local nut house.

Thats what I find really amusing about all this, the systems you have to
solve these problems is actually causing the problems you are trying to
solve. ;)
Unfortunately not many other places provide employment figures.
Government can lie, be creative, reword things (economically inactive
is different from unemployed).
If you can't believe government about figures they hold, who do you
believe?

Plenty of help available to prepare people. Quite a number of workers
made redundant in the past couple of years have taken the opportunity
to get a degree. Or further study.
Local colleges have been saying for a couple of years that their
daytime courses are well attended. Plenty of older ex-workers or those
who have been a while on the dole are taking things further.
Thats help thats been available for many years. Plus additional recent
courses and projects run to help unemployed in particular areas.
Neighborhood working fund as I recall locally is about 6 million a
year. Thats additional funding, though whether its renewed after March
is more open to question.

This government isn't as fond of chucking money at the problems as the
previous government. Yet.
Though there is a new scheme starting up I heard about last week to
encourage more unemployed to start a business. Plus revamp the
business link website.

Martin <><
 
N

Niteawk

Yes, it is pointless when you consider that the government has always
misrepresented unemployment figures, you can't believe a word they say. As
for understanding why so many people have become reliant on benefit, the
system we have does nothing to prepare them for worthwhile jobs. It is
designed to punish not help, treating people like prisoners, forcing them
to
sit in rooms for months at a time doing mindless tasks and then you expect
them to work. 6 months of madness like that and all they will be fit for
is
the local nut house.

Thats what I find really amusing about all this, the systems you have to
solve these problems is actually causing the problems you are trying to
solve. ;)
Unfortunately not many other places provide employment figures.
Government can lie, be creative, reword things (economically inactive
is different from unemployed).
If you can't believe government about figures they hold, who do you
believe?

__________________________________________
Its not a question of believing, explain why the government does not count
the unemployed people who are on New Deal attending sham courses. They must
have a reason for not including those figures.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

mart2306

Unfortunately not many other places provide employment figures.
Government can lie, be creative, reword things (economically inactive
is different from unemployed).
If you can't believe government about figures they hold, who do you
believe?

__________________________________________
Its not a question of believing, explain why the government does not count
the unemployed people who are on New Deal attending sham courses. They must
have a reason for not including those figures.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
So belief, or lack of belief, in the one organisation that can give
accurate figures or false figures?
The civil service.

Reasons could be purely arbitary - perhaps some civil servant 30 years
ago decided 'excluding those in training or education' and its simply
never been changed.
Or could be a minister deciding that 'people on courses paid for from
this fund will not be included in the unemployment figures while
attending'.
Or anywhere in between.

Its why 'economically active' and 'economically inactive' is perhaps a
better benchmark. Includes unemployed, retired and sick in the one,
includes workers of various kinds in the other.
But doesn't sound so well - 30 million (or howver many million)
economically inactive....

Martin <><
 
N

Niteawk

Its not a question of believing, explain why the government does not count
the unemployed people who are on New Deal attending sham courses. They
must
have a reason for not including those figures.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Reasons could be purely arbitary - perhaps some civil servant 30 years
ago decided 'excluding those in training or education' and its simply
never been changed.
Or could be a minister deciding that 'people on courses paid for from
this fund will not be included in the unemployment figures while
attending'.
Or anywhere in between.

Its why 'economically active' and 'economically inactive' is perhaps a
better benchmark. Includes unemployed, retired and sick in the one,
includes workers of various kinds in the other.
But doesn't sound so well - 30 million (or howver many million)
economically inactive....

Martin <><

__________________________________________
Going back to the original question and why I think the government does not
use accurate unemployment figures. If they presented actual accounts, I
think you will find that the billion pound per week figure mostly consists
of payments to New Deal and its quangos and a whole army of bureaucrats in
various dept's all doing the sames jobs.
 
M

mart2306

Reasons could be purely arbitary - perhaps some civil servant 30 years
ago decided 'excluding those in training or education' and its simply
never been changed.
Or could be a minister deciding that 'people on courses paid for from
this fund will not be included in the unemployment figures while
attending'.
Or anywhere in between.

Its why 'economically active' and 'economically inactive' is perhaps a
better benchmark. Includes unemployed, retired and sick in the one,
includes workers of various kinds in the other.
But doesn't sound so well - 30 million (or howver many million)
economically inactive....

Martin  <><

__________________________________________
Going back to the original question and why I think the government does not
use accurate unemployment figures. If they presented actual accounts, I
think you will find that the billion pound per week figure mostly consists
of payments to New Deal and its quangos and a whole army of bureaucrats in
various dept's all doing the sames jobs.
Yes, probably will be a fair number doing the same jobs.

Plus of course time wasted in collecting and collating/fudging stats
to present the 'proper' picture.
Years ago we had some consultants in to examine our stats in a
particular part of the DWP. They found that 54% (in other words, more
than half) of the stats we had to collect and collate each month
(using up about 10 man-days per month in a small office) served no
purpose whatsoever.
The result? An increase in stats collected and collated, not a change
in what we were already doing.

I daresay things aren't any better now.

Waste, unnecessary work and of course management of
everyone.......that was under Labour.
Too soon for Con/Lib coalition to change the civil service yet.

Martin <><
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

SS

Niteawk said:
Spending money on a second home or saying you spent the money on an office
which later turned out to be your garage, or spending money on duck houses
and moat cleaning, hiring landscape gardeners and interior designers etc.
Anything like that will be frowned upon.

And when you have to claim benefit again, it will be under the new regime
of ESA. Which means it does not matter what illness or disability you
have, if you still have a pulse Atos will declare you fit for work.
I suppose this is slightly off subject, but if the OP had a mortgage and was
struggling along from month to month on benefits and then recieved this
inheritance and used it to pay off their mortgage, would that be acceptable?
The alternative possibly losing their home for mortgage default and having
to be re housed.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

USA Inheritance/gift 2
UK Avoiding IHT and CGT on inherited property company 0
inheritance 5
Inherited annuity to "inherited ira" 10
Inheritance. 1
Inheritance 12
Inheritance 5
Inheritance 7

Top