For those of us unfit to work

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I disagree - those defrauding the system reduce the money available for those who need it, and the fraudsters also negatively affect the public view of valid claimants.

To do nothing, just because it is difficult, is a cop-out, imho.

Agreed.

I think I said this earlier, but there is a family that I know well, and the Dad was claiming full rate DLA for an injury that he has now almost fully recovered from. The mum doesn't work either, and there are 4 children living at the property. My wife felt sorry for them when the DLA was stopped, and they lost the car.

I explained to my wife that it took the tax from 4 people on my wage just to support them with DLA and other benefits. So the fact that they have lost their DLA, and now had to get a job, means that all that tax from 4 people on my wage will now go somewhere else rather than paying a scrounger.

---------- Post added at 13:15 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The comment about GP notes longer than a week has merit as well, even tho my sister got told after her mini stroke she would be off work for months, she has had to go in weekly for sick notes.

Thats because her disability isn't a long term one.

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------

Originally Posted by borrissey

More important people to go after like the banks bonuses etc. IMO.

That's a completely different matter. One isfunded by tax payers, the other is private business (even though our taxes do have to prop them up occasionally).

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Agreed.

I think I said this earlier, but there is a family that I know well, and the Dad was claiming full rate DLA for an injury that he has now almost fully recovered from. The mum doesn't work either, and there are 4 children living at the property. My wife felt sorry for them when the DLA was stopped, and they lost the car.

I explained to my wife that it took the tax from 4 people on my wage just to support them with DLA and other benefits. So the fact that they have lost their DLA, and now had to get a job, means that all that tax from 4 people on my wage will now go somewhere else rather than paying a scrounger.

Make your mind up. Was he injured or was he "a scrounger".

---------- Post added at 13:15 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Thats because her disability isn't a long term one.

Do you work for ATOS ot the ESA by any chance? If not you should consider doing so as you appear to have the same visionary distance diagnosis medical skills they employ.

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

That's a completely different matter. One isfunded by tax payers, the other is private business (even though our taxes do have to prop them up occasionally).

Banks are funded by tax payers also, it's where we put our money - and not only when they need bailing out.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The question has to be asked again tho, what is the bbcs agenda?

Just to clarify, in tune with my earlier post, I was being critical of the alleged actions of the claimants involved not the BBC's reasons for doing the programme.

For every cheat or fraudster there are probably dozens if not hundreds of decent people who are entilted to and rely upon what are all too often very meagre benefits. There are also many who are entitled yet don't claim for reasons as their own pride and dignity.

In this area, the actions of the few make life so much harder for the majority both directly and indirectly. It's right that these people are exposed and punished if found guilty but I would like to see the degree of fraud better quantified. This would the public to put it into context and better understand that it's a minority involved in this sort of thing and life's quite tough enough for the genuine claimant.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Make your mind up. Was he injured or was he "a scrounger".

---------- Post added at 13:15 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

Try reading my posts. He was injured a long time ago, but for years he as been doing decorating jobs, patios, and building work. So his knee injury obviously isn't stopping him working.

So in answer to your question, he was injured, but for many years he has just been a scrounger.


[QUOTE=Mr Angry;35324754]Do you work for ATOS ot the ESA by any chance? If not you should consider doing so as you appear to have the same visionary distance diagnosis medical skills they employ.

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------



It's quite simple, you just read the post, and then you will understand. It's nothing to do with super human powers or anything

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Banks are funded by tax payers also, it's where we put our money - and not only when they need bailing out.

You either really don't understand the banking system, or you are just being confrontational.

A bank is a private business, and is not funded by taxes.....simples!!!

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Try reading my posts. He was injured a long time ago, but for years he as been doing decorating jobs, patios, and building work. So his knee injury obviously isn't stopping him working.

So in answer to your question, he was injured, but for many years he has just been a scrounger.

Did you medically examine him or are you just as medically qualified as the ESA decision makers?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Do you work for ATOS ot the ESA by any chance? If not you should consider doing so as you appear to have the same visionary distance diagnosis medical skills they employ.

---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

It's quite simple, you just read the post, and then you will understand. It's nothing to do with super human powers or anything

Yes, you're right - it is quite simple. You are not medically qualified to attest to the individuals medical condition other than on the basis of your own quite clear prejudices. Additionally you appear to be overlooking the fact that ill people can work entirely legitimately and still be in receipt of benefits.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

You either really don't understand the banking system, or you are just being confrontational.

A bank is a private business, and is not funded by taxes.....simples!!!

I'm not sure that banks do constitute private businesses in the true sense of the word as most of them are listed. Additionally I didn't say banks were "funded by taxes". That said, however, the fact of the matter is that currently many are.

[Taf]

I think ATOS will love this report. An excuse to ignore the wide variation in effects of the disorder and just pigeonhole them all together.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...al-skills.html

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Did you medically examine him or are you just as medically qualified as the ESA decision makers?



---------- Post added at 13:20 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------



Yes, you're right - it is quite simple. You are not medically qualified to attest to the individuals medical condition other than on the basis of your own quite clear prejudices. Additionally you appear to be overlooking the fact that ill people can work entirely legitimately and still be in receipt of benefits.



I'm not sure that banks do constitute private businesses in the true sense of the word as most of them are listed. Additionally I didn't say banks were "funded by taxes". That said, however, the fact of the matter is that currently many are.

You really ought to read posts properly. As I said, I know him really well (but I'm not telling you how). He openly admitted that he was milking the system. And he has now lost his DLA, so he obviously wasn't entitled to it, but he just carried on claiming it as long as he could get away with it.

As for the person who said that their mother had had a stroke. They actually said that they probably wouldn't be able to work for a year. Normally you don't qualify for DLA if it is an injury illness that you will recover from (you will know this if you read the form). However in this case it appears that they do need the extra assistance, and the DLA have made special arrangements where the need is monitored on a regular basis. Hence the doctors notes, which is all I was explaining.

My son is actually on the lower rate DLA.

So don't accuse me of having prejudices.


As for the banks. Go in your local branch and ask them if they are financed by taxes. Then look up the term PLC. I you have an insurance policy with lets say Admiral, then it doesn't make it a publicly owned or financed company. It is a private company. Maybe you should look up these terms also.

And maybe you should stop trolling.

So the up to £50 billion that the UK Government put into buying shares in HBOS, Llloyds, and RBS, along with £500 billion of guarantees, wasn't taxpayers money?

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So the up to £50 billion that the UK Government put into buying shares in HBOS, Llloyds, and RBS, along with £500 billion of guarantees, wasn't taxpayers money?

They are shares. Anyone can buy shares as an investment. Unless you have a huge chunk of them, then you don't get much in the way of voting rights. So they are still a PLC, and not a nationalised business.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

....maybe you should stop trolling.

As Hugh pointed out above....maybe you should familiarize yourself with factual reality rather than spouting your prejudices as some sort of moral barometer.

Do you even understand what a plc is? It is a "Public", as opposed to "Private", limited company. You're doing a great job of undermining your own argument Tim.

Here's a thought. Instead of feigning some sort of moral indignity and abhorrence on here why didn't you inform on your dear friend who "..openly admitted that he was milking the system"?

I'm sorry to hear your son is on DLA. Here's hoping some blinkered, prejudiced holier than thou do-gooder - like yourself - doesn't have him in their sights as someone who's "milking the system".

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Do you even understand what a plc is? It is a "Public", as opposed to "Private", limited company. You're doing a great job of undermining your own argument Tim.

OMG, I can't believe you even said that
It means that anyone can buy their shares on the stock market. It doesn't mean that it is owned by the public, as in the government. Go and do some reading up.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Here's a thought. Instead of feigning some sort of moral indignity and abhorrence on here why didn't you inform on your dear friend who "..openly admitted that he was milking the system"?

I have my reasons, that are nothing to do with you.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I'm sorry to hear your son is on DLA. Here's hoping some blinkered prejudiced holier than thou do-gooder - like yourself - doesn't have him in their sights as someone who's "milking the system".

Don't you dare judge me. You know nothing about me, or my son.

You really do fit your name don't you. You don't read posts properly before you comment. You argue about things you know nothing about. And then you judge people who you know nothing about.

Maybe you should look up the definition of a troll.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

OMG, I can't believe you even said that
It means that anyone can buy their shares on the stock market. It doesn't mean that it is owned by the public, as in the government. Go and do some reading up.

Let me be clear about this Tim, you stated earlier that "a bank is a private business". The fact is that 99% of them are not and they operate on a plc shareholding basis.

To use your own terminology "simples".

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

I have my reasons, that are nothing to do with you.

You see Tim that suggests that you either don't have the nads to stand over your stated convictions or that you have a degree of tolerance for benefit fraud. Which is it?

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Don't you dare judge me. You know nothing about me, or my son.

You really do fit your name don't you. You don't read posts properly before you comment. You argue about things you know nothing about. And then you judge people who you know nothing about.

I'm not "judging" you or your son Tim - I'm merely commenting on what you write. It strikes me that you are so blinded by prejudice that you cannot even comprehend that there are people, like you, who will pre judge your son as milking the "system" despite the fact that he may well be very ill.

Can you not see how self contradictiory your position is?

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Maybe you should look up the definition of a troll.

I don't see what Scandinavian folklore has to do with any of this.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Let me be clear about this Tim, you stated earlier that "a bank is a private business". The fact is that 99% of them are not and they operate on a plc shareholding basis.

To use your own terminology "simples".



You see Tim that suggests that you either don't have the nads to stand over your stated convictions or that you have a degree of tolerance for benefit fraud. Which is it?



I'm not "judging" you or your son Tim - I'm merely commenting on what you write. It strikes me that you are so blinded by prejudice that you cannot even comprehend that there are people, like you, who will pre judge your son as milking the "system" despite the fact that he may well be very ill.

Can you not see how self contradictiory your position is?



I don't see what Scandinavian folklore has to do with any of this.

Its so good to see you back and firing on all cylinders Mr A

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

You really ought to read posts properly. As I said, I know him really well (but I'm not telling you how). He openly admitted that he was milking the system. And he has now lost his DLA, so he obviously wasn't entitled to it,

If someone openly admitted something like that to me, then I would take offense by it. If I didn't know them well or that they were neighbours in the same street, I'd would probably make a call. But if they are good close neighbours, eg, live right above or below (in a flat), then moralistically that would be up for debate. If they were friends, I would have to make myself known to them of my position against it.

I personally get it nearly every other day from people that just because I appear to look well, whatever happens or whatever I say really doesn't mean much to those people.

I also do things (not very often) that could be brought into question even more, I might go bowling etc, which on the front/look of it, would or could make me a prime candidate of a benefit fraudster because on paper I basically look like I'm death warmed up.

As for:

Originally Posted by Sirius

Its so good to see you back and firing on all cylinders Mr A

Sorry I disagree, I find it quite over the top to be honest.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Let me be clear about this Tim, you stated earlier that "a bank is a private business". The fact is that 99% of them are not and they operate on a plc shareholding basis.

To use your own terminology "simples".

If you actually did bother to read the posts, then you would understand. A public limited company is not owned or controlled by the tax payer or government. It is owned by individuals or organisations who own shares. So the government do not have any control over executives bonuses (which is what the conversation started about.

So get your facts right.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You see Tim that suggests that you either don't have the nads to stand over your stated convictions or that you have a degree of tolerance for benefit fraud. Which is it?

Just because I am disgusted by someones actions, then it doesn't mean that I have to drop them in it. I can understand where you are coming from, but unless you know the circumstances, then you can't really comment.

I can say that I was really happy when they did lose the DLA and the car, that myself and many other tax payers were paying for. And I wish it had happened a long time a go. But for circumstances that I can't reveal, I couldn't be the one to drop them in it.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I'm not "judging" you or your son Tim - I'm merely commenting on what you write. It strikes me that you are so blinded by prejudice that you cannot even comprehend that there are people, like you, who will pre judge your son as milking the "system" despite the fact that he may well be very ill.

Can you not see how self contradictiory your position is?

This is where you couldn't be more wrong. I am probably one of the least prejudice people you could possibly know. If you had read my posts, and the ones I was replying to, then you would know that all I want is justice, and for the people who abuse the system to lose their benefits, and the people who deserve it to get all the help they need.

You are commenting on what I write in the warped way that you choose to interpret it. If you had more of an open mind, and didn't just think the worst of people, then you would understand what I said.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I don't see what Scandinavian folklore has to do with any of this.

Was that supposed to be funny???
You know exactly what I mean.

---------- Post added at 11:27 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------

Originally Posted by peanut

If someone openly admitted something like that to me, then I would take offense by it. If I didn't know them well or that they were neighbours in the same street, I'd would probably make a call. But if they are good close neighbours, eg, live right above or below (in a flat), then moralistically that would be up for debate. If they were friends, I would have to make myself known to them of my position against it.

I personally get it nearly every other day from people that just because I appear to look well, whatever happens or whatever I say really doesn't mean much to those people.

I also do things (not very often) that could be brought into question even more, I might go bowling etc, which on the front/look of it, would or could make me a prime candidate of a benefit fraudster because on paper I basically look like I'm death warmed up.

I know exactly what you are saying, and it can be very difficult knowing what to. If it had just been down to me, then I would have made the call.

The person in question had a motorcycle accident many years ago, and had serious knee injuries that prevented him from working. But for many years he has been doing tiling, patios, building etc.. So as you can see, he has at the very least almost completely recovered.