Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
They often find poor unfortunate people with mental health issues have starved to death round here, often but not always with cupboards full of food. It was so bad our borough was merged with another to make the figures look better. Used to be the case they'd be looked after in an institution but they got closed to save money...
|
Oh yes, I well remember Thatchers 'Care in the community' idea. Despite all the spin about wanting to help those who had been institutionalised by closing down mental institutions, in practice it often meant shoving former residents into a bedsit on benefits. Then, when they couldn't cope and didn't complete forms, attend appointments etc it was left to the police, NHS staff, the DWP etc to sort out. These days, of course, the DWP respond by simply cutting off their income hence all these deaths from starvation or suicide.
---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 18:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
So if somebody doesn't respond to anything, they should simply keep getting benefits?  AFAIK the safeguarding visits are post-2010. So prior to that, those precautions wouldn't have happened. Which is the attempt at the better system? Pre-2010 or post-2010? |
It doesn't have to be binary. The current DWP way of working is zero tolerance to any failure, with no allowances for flexibility or common sense or humanity. They just reduce, suspend or close a live claim.
Of course claimants have to participate in the requirements of the system if they are able to. If they don't engage the DWP simply compounds matters by cutting off their income instead of looking into
why they have failed to respond etc.
---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:19 ----------
[QUOTE=nomadking;36023993]So before 2010, claimants were able to not attend assessments and still get benefits?
Would those visits have taken place before 2010? In other words it would've been
more likely to have occurred under the rules before 2010.
So the DWP had nothing else to go on. What else were they expected to do?/QUOTE]
As previously explained, before Camerons 'Stricter benefits regime' mantra (and cuts to staffing levels), we used common sense and flexibility to look into why the claimant wasn't engaging with the department. Sometimes it's possible to bypass a mentally ill or disabled customer completely and obtain the information elsewhere without a claim form.
This is the true meaning of 'social
security'.
These days a robotic approach is deployed, which you appear to endorse with your inhumane comments that are devoid of any form of empathy whatsoever.
As the National Lottery strapline says 'It could be YOU'.