The state benefits system mega-thread.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Hmm.

It would be great to see a full and impartial presentation of the facts of both those cases, without the accompanying value judgments (the DWP and its agents might be harsh and bureaucratic but are they really trying to speed people to their graves? Really?).

I don’t think a balanced treatment of anything is likely to arise from that website.

Yes, you are probably right ... in a very similar way to your (many) posts from the order-order.com website.

[RichardCoulter]

This site:

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/

Has a feature about an interesting book about what has been done to disabled people since 2010:

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.co...rnments-shame/

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This site:

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/

Has a feature about an interesting book about what has been done to disabled people since 2010:

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.co...rnments-shame/

Completely devoid of facts. Just as the same as the 100,000+ deaths claim.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Completely devoid of facts. Just as the same as the 100,000+ deaths claim.

Do you believe that Stephen and the awful situation he finds himself in through no fault of his own is due to his "choice" or any failure to comply?

One woman is to take on the DWP over her daughters death:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...L&guccounter=2

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Do you believe that Stephen and the awful situation he finds himself in through no fault of his own is due to his "choice" or any failure to comply?

One woman is to take on the DWP over her daughters death:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...L&guccounter=2

She was asked to provide proof of her hospital stay, she didn't. At the very least that would have been the hospital discharge form. She had received notification, she just hadn't opened the letters. Only some benefits were stopped, not all of them. She didn't wait for the result of the Mandatory Reconsideration, although that decision was still a no. She still hadn't exhausted all appeal options, which would have kept the money coming in, and allowed time to get any evidence together.Any time during the final appeal phase the DWP can change their mind, if you happen to supply the evidence. She had sought advice from CAB, so they would have been able to give the options. Failing all that, she could have signed on for JSA, and immediately started an Extended Period of Sickness(EPS), which can last up to 3 months. That would have given her more time to sort things out. Where was her mother in all this?



The facts are all out there.

[RichardCoulter]

European court ruling says that the UK Government must pay compensation to a victim of domestic abuse who suffered discrimination regarding the Bedroom Tax:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...dealt-20714008

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

European court ruling says that the UK Government must pay compensation to a victim of domestic abuse who suffered discrimination regarding the Bedroom Tax:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...dealt-20714008

So yet again, what similar measures were in place for the private rented sector under Labour? If they had been any, they would have automatically been included. Why is it after decades of something not being the case, that under the Conservatives is magically different?
In that sort of situation, you do what everybody else on the planet has always had to do, and move elsewhere. If you're in that much known danger, a panic room isn't going to make much difference. They will wait until you go outside and/or surprise you.


Doesn't sound like she's even been attempted to be attacked in all that time(6 years).

[jfman]

Our resident DWP member of staff leaps to their defence once again.

The reality is they’ve introduced a bad policy not properly impact assessed against a wide range of protected characteristics and human rights. They deserve to lose every time in court.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Our resident DWP member of staff leaps to their defence once again.

The reality is they’ve introduced a bad policy not properly impact assessed against a wide range of protected characteristics and human rights. They deserve to lose every time in court.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the "bedroom tax". As I pointed out, any similar rule has NEVER been in place for the private rented sector. So why was something that is now supposedly deemed illegal, not deemed illegal before 2013 or even before 2010?
UK Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

In A’s case, the judges found by a majority of 5-2 in favour of the government. They ruled while A must continue to receive the protection of the sanctuary scheme, that did not automatically require her to have an extra bedroom, therefore the bedroom tax did not discriminate against women.

No mention of any subsequent attacks, attempted or otherwise, so the whole thing was unsurprisingly unnecessary in the first place.


If it is supposedly a matter of the evil Tories and the evil "bedroom tax", then the same goes for Labour and Housing Benefit.

[jfman]

I'll stick to the European Court of Human Rights interpretation, thank you very much as it's a higher court. Which I'm sure the DWP will have trained you on the hierarchy. What has or hasn't happened previously is an irrelevance. The DWP introduced a bad policy, and deserved to lose the case.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

I'll stick to the European Court of Human Rights interpretation, thank you very much as it's a higher court. Which I'm sure the DWP will have trained you on the hierarchy. What has or hasn't happened previously is an irrelevance. The DWP introduced a bad policy, and deserved to lose the case.

The DWP haven't trained me in anything.

Nothing was introduced, at any time, by anybody, that is actually related to this case. If it's illegal now, then it was illegal in 2010, 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950 etc. But it wasn't illegal in those decades and nobody complained about it.

The UNUSED "panic room" IS a bedroom. It would've made more sense for her to sleep in there, if she was actually in danger.

The other part of their decision.

Today's judgement did not find in favour of a second claimant who lives in a three-bed adapted home with her severely disabled daughter.

So that decision is ok?

[jfman]

It’s incorrect to claim the circumstances are the same now as the 1960s. The whole case is premised upon changes to Housing Benefit.

I’m not familiar with the second case but if the European Court of Human Rights have made a ruling as a lay person I’m not inclined to disagree with them in the absence of any evidence or facts at my disposal.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s incorrect to claim the circumstances are the same now as the 1960s. The whole case is premised upon changes to Housing Benefit.

I’m not familiar with the second case but if the European Court of Human Rights have made a ruling as a lay person I’m not inclined to disagree with them in the absence of any evidence or facts at my disposal.

The 2nd case is also in the Mirror article.

The principle of excess bedrooms existed BEFORE 2013, and BEFORE 2010. If the house had been in the private rented sector, they still wouldn't have received the 3 bedroom rate, only the 2 bedroom. That would've have been the case in the 2000s, 1990s, 1980s, 1970s etc. It was NOT a case of something that was allowed in the private rented sector, was suddenly not allowed in the social sector. Prior to 2010, an extra bedroom wouldn't be allowed for a carer or medical equipment. Now it might be, depending on individual circumstances. That happened from 1st April 2011. Those evil Tories have actually relaxed the previous rules. If Labour had still been in power, the rules wouldn't have been relaxed. So which side is evil?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The 2nd case is also in the Mirror article.

The principle of excess bedrooms existed BEFORE 2013, and BEFORE 2010. If the house had been in the private rented sector, they still wouldn't have received the 3 bedroom rate, only the 2 bedroom. That would've have been the case in the 2000s, 1990s, 1980s, 1970s etc. It was NOT a case of something that was allowed in the private rented sector, was suddenly not allowed in the social sector. Prior to 2010, an extra bedroom wouldn't be allowed for a carer or medical equipment. Now it might be, depending on individual circumstances. Those evil Tories have actually relaxed the previous rules. If Labour had still been in power, the rules wouldn't have been relaxed. So which side is evil?

The Tories are evil. That’s an easy one.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The Tories are evil. That’s an easy one.

The weak minded are easily brain washed.