Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Noticed in this report Chris Grayling **** instantly jumping up for joy to justify many was not disabled yet they forget the goalpost got moved 2 times once under **** labour now massive move under the coalisition.

It does not mean those who missed not disabled it means sadly some disabled been the nuclear fallout to get cheats out.

Got nothing against kicking the cheats off but there is many many backlog of appeals is Mr Grayling bit premature to assume those appeals will all fail. When the average is actually think 50% succesful appeal.

So going by this the figure shrinks the propaganda from government and BEEB disgusting. So the figure is 18.5% Mr Grayling not your report figure.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

39% successful appeal rate.

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/worki...a_26072011.pdf page 7

And you are confusing your percentages - the 37% quoted were not appeals across all assessment. The actual appeals were 37% of the 62% who were found 'Fit for Work'.

So the success rate for appeals (at the date of the report) was 39% of 37% of 62% of all ESA completed assessments, which is approx. 9%. of all completed assessments at the time of the report.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

but Hugh those facts don't fit in with his anti government agenda

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Point of information - I am not trying to deflect or support any agendas; just trying to clarify the figures being quoted.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

What I don't get is why do they care so much about cutting benefit when this guy still has not paid the billions he owes the government in tax :D

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2012/03/25.jpg

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

thanks hugh I was not completely sure what success ratio of the appeals new it was quite high.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

I thought the figures were 40% deemed fit to work appealled and of those 37-39% succeeded in their appeal with that figure rising to over 70% where they were represented but might be wrong. Pretty pointless to be honest as the WCA is a complete and total joke that is so laughably easy it is very hard to fail the damn thing plenty of testaments to that on the net and from people in the know not just people who failed. Add into that there are some very serious concerns about ATOS and how they run the tests and it is not a fair and proper way to assess fitness anyway.

Fact is this government is not one bit interested in doing right by any group at the minute they are just cutting costs left right and centre saving some money in the short term but likely to cost more in the medium to longterm. Cannot find the link now but a group of consultants have said that forcing people into work which many of them dearly want to do is counter productive in many cases as they will accelerate their conditions meaning more complicated and expensive treatments will be necessary a lot sooner also rendering the individual a lot less independent as well. That seems like common sense to me with regard to some claimants but probably not the majority but for any to be in that position shames us as a country that calls itself developed and civilised.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Try to be factual, eh?

He doesn't 'owe' anything - all his companies' tax dealings were legal.

That's like saying you 'owe' the government any tax benefits you gained when you made pension contributions.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

It is still wrong and It should be made law that any tax you avoid (bar pensions) as long as records begin should be payed

Especialy as we are in an era were we cannot afford to rebuild our schools

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

What are schools got to do with tax or incapacity tests?:rolleyes:

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Becuase of spending cuts, the schools rebuilding programme had been scrapped, while tax evader are never having it so good

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Are there any other laws you wish to change retroactively?

Even if you did so I doubt you'd able to gain enough money to cover ALL the government cuts.

With regards to benefit cuts. I doubt there are many people who think that the system doesn't need to be tightened up or reviewed at all.

But the people who DO the tests and make the decisions about it should at least understand what they are doing to enable the said new system to be fair don't you think?

I just don't think it's all being done the right way.

But I am trying to do something about it - and unlike you this doesn't involve the suggestions of murder/violence or 'rising up'. As you make elsewhere.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

According to the Guardian, 10s of billions have been evaded, so over lets say 25 years, several hundreds of billions of have been evaded and avoided and if reclaimed would fix our finances much better than dealing with Benefits

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Avoided or evaded ? you consistently get mixe up between the two .I have just avoided paying nearly £5,000 in tax ,perfectly legaly ,does that make me worthy of your disgust ?

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Yes it seems Alan is disgusted with nearly everything or anybody in his fantasy world apart from his own fantasy like rantings.:)

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Evading is wrong and illegal

Avoiding is wrong and legal

My main compliant is not people like you, but people who avoid billions

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

:clap:

---------- Post added at 14:02 ---------- Previous post was at 14:01 ----------

spot on :tu:

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

so you want to be selective about who the law of the land applies to

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

No I would deal with the big tax evaders and avoiders first and work my way down

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

how far down ?,where would you stop and say "i will allow them to avoid some tax" will there be a fixed limit or will it change whenever your world government needs more money to annex another nation that is harbouring tax avoiders and wealthy people

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

The only law Alan is interested in is his own law to suit his own political and monetary ends.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Eventually I plan to deal with all tax evaders and avoiders

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Would that be the law of "Whats yours is MINE but whats MINE is my own so get your hands OFF"

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:26 ----------

You have NO chance as your fantasies are just that FANTASIES

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

The only fantasies are ones by defenders and promoters of a failed social, poltical and economic system

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

So your system is the one that all democracy's should adopt then.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

It certainly better than the system we got

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

No, no dear Alan.:nono::nono:

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Sandwich short of a picnic...... :nutter:

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

I prefer one card short of a full deck

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Actually, I suspect he got lost on the way to the picnic :D

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Excellent :)

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Actually, he would probably not want to be invited to a failed social, political and economic picnic.

He would hold his own picnic, where everyone would arrive at a central airport with 300 landing strips, then travel by a fifteen mile long high-speed train (the fares would be £2 million pound each, but that's ok, as he would have put up everyone's wages to be able to afford them), and then he would decide what everyone was going to eat and where they would sit, as it would be an authoritarian democratic picnic, and if anyone did not attend this picnic, they would be treated as pariahs by the rest of the world.....;)

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

as long as there are no cucumber sandwiches ......and ants ,i hate ants

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

That is excellent :clap:

---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:46 ----------

Unfortunately if they have paid there taxes then they will be allowed. So check there tax status first.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Can i just ask how many threads are going to keep getting derailed and sky rocketed off topic by the delusional rantings of one poster to be honest it is getting beyond a joke now.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Been saying just that for weeks now.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Then i guess the answer is as long as he can stomach posting on here and getting completely ridiculed for his views which he has the right to hold and express in appropriate threads not ever damn thread he can post in. Maybe he is allowed to stay and do it is because he then becomes an easy target for insults not always well veiled and ridicule by some of the more up themselves members of CF.

Being honest either tell him straight to stop it or just ban the account too many threads are getting disrupted by this continual drivel that for me at least i would rather spend my time on other forums where we don't have this one person.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Could the words "failed", "social", "political", "economic" and "system" be put on the swear filter for a while perhaps?

Then we would find out if he knows any other words?

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

I would much prefer we put HIM in the swear filter or slow his internet down so he takes ages to post anything.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Just found a survey on this figures done by leeds university its quite telling frank.

The figures actually dont tell the story.

Infact out those deemed fit for work only 13% are actually Fit for work. Now you might think hang on how does that work well its been found out many been put on temporary sick leave and even some been put on permanent sick leave. Which mean these unfit for work. This is review with some stats clearly have had access to the data.

Cracking read eye opener to really what going on. Why have we been seeing nit picked the information to suit political agenda.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-st...rm%20Fraud.pdf

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Talking about nit-picking, I would have to admit I get concerned when I see a piece of research from a Russell Group University with emotive language in it like -

The title - The Billion Pound Welfare Reform Fraud

Phrases such as
Case studies have shown the inhumanity of a system based on government targets and the pain and misery of the increasing stringency of these tests
LiMAS asks a set of questions for which the applicant can (but increasingly can’t) score up to 15 points
The ‘fit for work’ myth does not convert into any form of reality.
This does not count the human anxiety, misery or stress of the test, nor the suicides that have resulted because of it.
the hallowed taxpayer
It is a publically sanctioned fraud that misrepresents and *******ises its claims to support people

And considering that the author is one the co-founders of DPAC (Disabled People Against Cuts), may I suggest there may be another less than hidden Political agenda in the paper; and her twitter (redjolly1) banner may provide some insight...
Update - My apologies, as the paper is not in fact a research paper, but based upon the academic's blog at the LSE?

I think she makes some very good points, but then weakens them by her partiality.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Well i never would have seen that coming ;)

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Why do you have to bring this into most of the threads you post in Alan?

It's not exactly on topic is it?

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

I think it's to do with them trying to cut pennies when there's millions in other places they haven't or won't look yet.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

I agree hugh on the language the agressive nature if it. I just happened to find it thought wow this gives some figures would be ideal to post. Although I accept its anti reform which I personally not I am anti to the way its descriminating disabled should be to simplify the welfare and make it harder to defraud. I never expected them to wage war on disabled accept that there would be collateral damage.

I felt it was eye opener in some of the stuff in it.

Yes from stand point she going to anti but think she found alot issues.

Hugh did you see this bit I was quite shocked at the figure of appeals gone up not down.

Why has this happened are more chancing there arm due to success rates or ATOS despite government assurances got even more incompetant. This is worry trend surely would thought it would get less this could cause major issues there already huge backlog. If trend going up how much this going to cost.

I was not suprised some those found fit were going to be short term sick maybe those who possible got injuries, recovering from ops would be deemed would make full recovery.

The ones which to me seems strange is the permenant sick group who deemed fit seems a strange issue. Are these then wrongly been assessed in process reclaiming. How can they be permenant sick but not able to qualify ESA.

I just hope the media raises questions which this has brought up.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Alan keeps talking about tax avoidance (which is perfectly legal), rather than tax evasion (which is illegal).

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

So you prefer a system were the rich have everything at the expence of everone and elise and we cannot stop human rights violations in Syria?

---------- Post added at 05:49 ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 ----------

Seriously, you just do not see the big picture, my point is that we should no longer be under control of the rich and pay the price for their mistakes

---------- Post added at 05:52 ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 ----------

If CF users are prepaired to have a go at me, well then I will do the same, I know what you really think aboue me, but if you think that will stop me then you are mistaken, all it will do is I will shout back

---------- Post added at 05:55 ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 ----------

My point is that why is the government not taking a hard line of people like him as well?

---------- Post added at 05:57 ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 ----------

Tax Aviodance and Evasion are both wrong in times of both growth and recession

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Not a problem i will just remove my hearing aid and then that will not work ether.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

anyone else confused by this or is it just me :confused::confused::confused:

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

No l get confused all the time.:D

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

With respect Hugh, that's what we were trying to do

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

found some more figures at present they are going through 1.5m claims.

http://victimsofatoscorruption.wordp...d-fit-to-work/

333.000 are appealing the decision thats alot appeals. The appeal process increased as they expect it to peak at 500,000 next years wow. The costs so far for appeals has been 50m to government. The appeals success is 40% that equates to 200,000 but we cant go by this as it will flucturate batch of losses will reduce likewise the other way.

So as rough safe 150,000 will fail. I would assume as the likely hood its been targeted on scale we will see less and less appeals but then it flies against the expecting 500,000 appeals. I would be suprised they randomly selecting would targeted illnesses they likely to see chances of either it was fake or they not disabled for support.

They concluded from the first 141.000 assessed 37% been found fit for work.

Which means the government very premature with its anouncement if it only had 141,000 figures.

The other I dont like is the mistakes they should do proper assessment with profesionals to minimise those errors.

http://www.dpac.uk.net/2011/05/debbi...-fit-for-work/

This was such horror story mistakes like this can put a disabled person health at risk. Whether the lady filled the form right another question its been noted the questionairres very poorly done its confusing even those who work in organisations who help fill them in. So if these struggling you can imagine issues arise.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

The whole WCA system needs to be looked at and preferably very soon sd the level of appeals is increasing every single day and i do wonder at what point we stop saving any money and start having to spend more money because of the appeals. Having never been through one and hoping to never have too i am guessing they are staffed by at least one person on a decent wage plus the costs of holding it in the first place. Atos are a disgrace in the way they handle the process and if it were in any other area of a company dealing with members of the public there would have been an outcry before now with action to follow.

I think what i worry about most is how this will change the country in terms of attitude as we in the UK have always been a fair minded and tolerent society i would hate to see that go as a result of propaganda from those with complete levels of ignorance.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

totally agree but it wont its going get lot worse. Lots more badness coming if read osbourne todays he said saved 18bn on welfare its not enough further 10bn cuts coming. Now not all will be disabled but thinking the goalpost just got moved.

I will post it as new link on forum its worth its own thread. Not suprising he screwed up theyre now tons on the dole.

He one idiot who cant do his job properly He would'nt need further cuts if stimulated job creation not his stupid workfare. Like alot said his cuts was too deep now we all paying for his damage. His debt gone up again.

If I can find more info about stats on the disabled I will post it. Did you read those links on the other thread quite insight on new thing which will replace DLA its really nasty. Maybe this where dogbourne going to make the 10bn savings.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

Yes i did read them and the information in them was already known and this whole dla replacement is nothing more then a cost cutting exercise. But it is well marketed to the general public by the government "personal independence payment" who would think that could be bad. We need more of the public to read up on it scratch the thin surface and see it for what it is.

Re: Incapacity tests reject 37% of claimants
 

indeed I agree but the propaganda machine been full tilt with full deceit and lies. I agree PIP looks evil twisted bad. I wondering where he going to find another 10bn savings. Suppose really know the PIP slaughter. He forgets even disabled have bills where money going to come to pay them and there extra costs to help improve quality of life.