Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
What would you define as acceptable basis/proof tho?
|
Confirmation of a conviction under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act of 1981 in relation to your allegations would be helpful. As indeed would proof of any disciplinary measures having been taken by the BMA (which are regularly published in the public domain) against any of their members whom you, singularly, allege to have falsified medical reports in relation to DWP assessments.
Mind you, had either of the above actually happened I'm sure there'd have been an unmissable, unrelenting national outcry.
All you have presented are your fantastical allegations.
Tell us Chrysalis, how did you yourself satisfy your own mind as to the veracity of the allegations you posted? Surely you must have read or accessed "proof" somewhere in the public domain before deciding that these were indeed true and worthy of putting your name to?
---------- Post added at 17:11 ---------- Previous post was at 17:06 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
I think you discrediting yourself, so we think the same of each other. You stay silent as people make claim after claim about claimants without proof as you say, then the first person to say something directly about the system defrauding claimants and you demand proof. More people will side with you of course because its the trend to back the system changes and to look at claimants as frauds.
|
If you bothered to read my posts in this thread you would see that is exactly NOT my position on this matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
People post similiar things on this forum every day, whats special about this one?
|
What is "special" about this is that you are posting lies, innuendo and unqualified allegations as fact. It serves no purpose to protect the genuinely ill but instead weakens their case as evidenced by Hughs quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
By the way reread the article, the specific reason I linked it is it quotes a case number.
|
Yes, quite. A case number in relation to what - specifically? Oh yes, that's right. It's the appeals case reference number of the appeal by "Mrs E" which was dismissed and can be seen
here.
Now, whilst "Mrs E" lost her appeal she has still maintained her anonymity.
I'd expect that the same anonymity would be afforded a claimant who brought a successful case against anyone who might have created or sought to create a fraudulent instrument against them.
Hens teeth would appear to be easier to find.