Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
Page 1
  • Invalidation
    • #2
    • 22nd Oct 12, 11:10 AM
    • #2
    • 22nd Oct 12, 11:10 AM
    Whilst the Gravy train at Westminster rolls on and on
    The DWP = Legally kicking the Disabled when they are down.
  • krisskross
    • #3
    • 22nd Oct 12, 11:30 AM
    • #3
    • 22nd Oct 12, 11:30 AM
    Whilst the Gravy train at Westminster rolls on and on
    Originally posted by Invalidation
    Reading some of the amounts claimed via disability real and exaggerated I would suggest that to many people it is a Disability Gravy train.
  • miduck
    • #4
    • 22nd Oct 12, 11:45 AM
    • #4
    • 22nd Oct 12, 11:45 AM
    Why do the forum team post these things on this board? The threads only ever seem to go one way ...
  • rogerblack
    • #5
    • 22nd Oct 12, 11:50 AM
    • #5
    • 22nd Oct 12, 11:50 AM
    Reading some of the amounts claimed via disability real and exaggerated I would suggest that to many people it is a Disability Gravy train.
    Originally posted by krisskross
    Despite government ministers who would dearly love to be able to say 'Fraud is 30% of disability benefit payouts' - DWP research based on checking up in detail on a random set of claimants found it to be around 0.5%.

    The continued spinning against the disabled by ministers has been very obvious, often coming not much short of flat-out-lying.

    Statements like 'Only 7% of claimants to ESA are found to be unable to do any work' - implying that 93% are workshy scroungers.

    When the reality is that ESA is claimed for periods as short as a week, for short-term injuries and illnesses.
    Someone claiming with a broken leg will never get to the 13 week assessment, so will never be 'found unfit for work'.

    It also neglects that you can be found 'sort-of-fit-for-some-work.'
    People in this position are often severely disabled - and yet the assumption that they can work if they try has been used to justify everything from housing benefit cuts to time-limiting ESA.

    The real figure if you go through all the problems with the '7%' figure is closer to 70%.
    (assuming everyone had representation to properly put their case to the tribunal, and to assist them through the process).

    It's also important to realise that the remaining 30% are often quite disabled.
    Simply being found fit for work doesn't mean you are.

    This sort of spinning has been directly linked to the rise on attacks on disabled people.
  • Dunroamin
    • #6
    • 22nd Oct 12, 11:53 AM
    • #6
    • 22nd Oct 12, 11:53 AM
    Despite government ministers who would dearly love to be able to say 'Fraud is 30% of disability benefit payouts' - DWP research based on checking up in detail on a random set of claimants found it to be around 0.5%.

    The continued spinning against the disabled by ministers has been very obvious, often coming not much short of flat-out-lying.

    Statements like 'Only 7% of claimants to ESA are found to be unable to do any work' - implying that 93% are workshy scroungers.

    When the reality is that ESA is claimed for periods as short as a week, for short-term injuries and illnesses.
    Someone claiming with a broken leg will never get to the 13 week assessment, so will never be 'found unfit for work'.

    It also neglects that you can be found 'sort-of-fit-for-some-work.'
    People in this position are often severely disabled - and yet the assumption that they can work if they try has been used to justify everything from housing benefit cuts to time-limiting ESA.

    The real figure if you go through all the problems with the '7%' figure is closer to 70%.
    (assuming everyone had representation to properly put their case to the tribunal, and to assist them through the process).

    It's also important to realise that the remaining 30% are often quite disabled.
    Simply being found fit for work doesn't mean you are.

    This sort of spinning has been directly linked to the rise on attacks on disabled people.
    Originally posted by rogerblack
    Describing something as a "gravy train" doesn't necessarily imply fraud.
  • clemmatis
    • #7
    • 22nd Oct 12, 12:06 PM
    • #7
    • 22nd Oct 12, 12:06 PM
    Reading some of the amounts claimed via disability real and exaggerated I would suggest that to many people it is a Disability Gravy train.
    Originally posted by krisskross
    I guess you'd know.
  • rogerblack
    • #8
    • 22nd Oct 12, 12:06 PM
    • #8
    • 22nd Oct 12, 12:06 PM
    Describing something as a "gravy train" doesn't necessarily imply fraud.
    Originally posted by Dunroamin
    I was assuming that this was the posters intent.

    We want disabled people into work, if they can possibly manage it.
    Reducing support, or providing poorly targetted support may mean they can't obtain, or keep employment.

    In general, for various reasons - timekeeping, impairments, ... the disabled are in lower paid work.
    Additional help can be crucial in enabling them to keep in work.
  • clemmatis
    • #9
    • 22nd Oct 12, 12:09 PM
    • #9
    • 22nd Oct 12, 12:09 PM
    I was assuming that this was the posters intent.

    We want disabled people into work, if they can possibly manage it.
    Reducing support, or providing poorly targetted support may mean they can't obtain, or keep employment.

    In general, for various reasons - timekeeping, impairments, ... the disabled are in lower paid work.
    Additional help can be crucial in enabling them to keep in work.
    Originally posted by rogerblack
    Yes. And just today we hear -- again -- that councils are cutting back drastically on care given to disabled people, including care that helps them stay in work.
  • Dunroamin
    I was assuming that this was the posters intent.

    We want disabled people into work, if they can possibly manage it.
    Reducing support, or providing poorly targetted support may mean they can't obtain, or keep employment.

    In general, for various reasons - timekeeping, impairments, ... the disabled are in lower paid work.
    Additional help can be crucial in enabling them to keep in work.
    Originally posted by rogerblack
    You'll have to ask Invalidation what he meant by the term.

    Additional help and support doesn't necessarily mean additional funding for the individual which can often be counterproductive.
  • JohnRo
    Describing something as a "gravy train" doesn't necessarily imply fraud.
    Originally posted by Dunroamin
    Yet the implication is, in all honesty, quite clear, so why the pretence. The upshot is that support for those with disability is a drain on finance and resources, that's a fact.

    Whether it is the massive problem that those with an agenda portray it to be, all other things considered as a whole, is another matter entirely.
  • krisskross
    Describing something as a "gravy train" doesn't necessarily imply fraud.
    Originally posted by Dunroamin
    Indeed it doesn't but a recent poster saying he receives 1100 a month on disability benefits as opposed to the ~300 he would get on JSA would seem to show why people are anxious to stay on disability benefits.
    • seven-day-weekend
    • By seven-day-weekend 22nd Oct 12, 12:26 PM
    • 24,930 Posts
    • 44,861 Thanks
    seven-day-weekend
    Despite government ministers who would dearly love to be able to say 'Fraud is 30% of disability benefit payouts' - DWP research based on checking up in detail on a random set of claimants found it to be around 0.5%.

    The continued spinning against the disabled by ministers has been very obvious, often coming not much short of flat-out-lying.

    Statements like 'Only 7% of claimants to ESA are found to be unable to do any work' - implying that 93% are workshy scroungers.

    When the reality is that ESA is claimed for periods as short as a week, for short-term injuries and illnesses.
    Someone claiming with a broken leg will never get to the 13 week assessment, so will never be 'found unfit for work'.

    It also neglects that you can be found 'sort-of-fit-for-some-work.'
    People in this position are often severely disabled - and yet the assumption that they can work if they try has been used to justify everything from housing benefit cuts to time-limiting ESA.

    The real figure if you go through all the problems with the '7%' figure is closer to 70%.
    (assuming everyone had representation to properly put their case to the tribunal, and to assist them through the process).

    It's also important to realise that the remaining 30% are often quite disabled.
    Simply being found fit for work doesn't mean you are.

    This sort of spinning has been directly linked to the rise on attacks on disabled people.
    Originally posted by rogerblack
    Which means that 93% can do (or will be able to do in the future) SOME work, which means they will be put in the work-related activity group of ESA rather than the support group . It does not suggest that they are fully fit for all types of work at this very moment.
    Last edited by seven-day-weekend; 22-10-2012 at 12:30 PM. Reason: to re-inset text
    I am a Job Club Coach in Association with CAP
    'I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because I see everything by it': C.S. Lewis
    St. Augustine 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.'
  • Dunroamin
    Yet the implication is, in all honesty, quite clear, so why the pretence. The upshot is that support for those with disability is a drain on finance and resources, that's a fact.
    Originally posted by JohnRo
    There's an enormous difference between questioning the culture of benefits and the assumption of fraud.
  • rogerblack
    Which means that 93% can do (or will be able to do in the future) SOME work. It does not suggest that they are fully fit for all types of work at this very moment.
    Originally posted by seven-day-weekend
    Quite.
    However, that was very different from the way it was spun to the national papers at the time.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2018941/Only-7-claiming-Incapacity-Benefit-replacement-unfit-work-claims-DWP.html
  • rogerblack
    Which means that 93% can do (or will be able to do in the future) SOME work. It does not suggest that they are fully fit for all types of work at this very moment.
    Originally posted by seven-day-weekend
    Quite.
    However, that was very different from the way it was spun to the national papers at the time.

    "Only 7% of those claiming Incapacity Benefit replacement are unfit for work, claims DWP

    Only one in 14 of those trying to claim the replacement for incapacity benefit are actually unfit for work, Government figures have revealed.
    "


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2018941/Only-7-claiming-Incapacity-Benefit-replacement-unfit-work-claims-DWP.html

    (This article has been considerably updated from its original state, which was much more negative)
  • SailorSam
    Reading some of the amounts claimed via disability real and exaggerated I would suggest that to many people it is a Disability Gravy train.
    Originally posted by krisskross
    And if we're all in it together why is it that it's only the disabled that are being punished.
    If you're a member of parliament you can claim much more for first class rail travel (even if you don't pay it) and you can have expensive rents paid.
    Now that i'm what you could describe as an older person i've stopped eating health foods.
    I need all the preservatives i can get.

  • dori2o
    For some it is not the loss of the money they get from DLA that will be the problem, it is the other help options and benefits that come with it.

    For instance, I get a free parking space at work as I am 'registered disabled'. I can't use public transport as I'm unable to sit or stand for more than an hour and a half at a time (which is how long to takes on 2 buses to and from work), but driving is more expensive (more than twice the cost of public transport) and so the free parking space is a means for me to mitigate that extra cost.

    However, I only get that space as I am registered disabled. We all know there is no disabled register and what they actually mean is that I receive DLA.

    There are many other options for help out there that are only given on production of proof that you are disabled, which in 99% of cases is proof that you are in receipt of DLA.

    For example the Disabled persons bus pass- only issued on proof of receiveing DLA/AA.

    There is a suspicion that those who can self propel in a wheelchair will not get the new PIP which replaces DLA from next year.

    Does this mean a wheelchair bound person who can self propel, but does not satisfy the PIP criteria is not disabled?

    Why should a person who is disabled, but does not qualify for the benefit, or choses not to claim the benefit, be discriminated against when it comes to these other forms of help.

    Thats why I suggested there needs to be another way of being 'registered disabled' a few months ago on this forum, in order for all disabled people to be entitled to the further help that is available.
    To equate judgement and wisdom with occupation is at best . . . insulting.
    • seven-day-weekend
    • By seven-day-weekend 22nd Oct 12, 12:50 PM
    • 24,930 Posts
    • 44,861 Thanks
    seven-day-weekend
    And if we're all in it together why is it that it's only the disabled that are being punished.
    If you're a member of parliament you can claim much more for first class rail travel (even if you don't pay it) and you can have expensive rents paid.
    Originally posted by SailorSam

    It's not. It's also the under 25s, under 35s, social housing tenants on Housing Benefit who have a spare room, and various others. Most people on benefits in fact, unless they have hoards of children or, (dare I say it) are Pensioners.

    How else is the Welfare bill going to come down unless the way we dish it out is curtailed?
    Last edited by seven-day-weekend; 22-10-2012 at 12:58 PM.
    I am a Job Club Coach in Association with CAP
    'I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because I see everything by it': C.S. Lewis
    St. Augustine 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.'
  • clemmatis
    Indeed it doesn't but a recent poster saying he receives 1100 a month on disability benefits as opposed to the ~300 he would get on JSA would seem to show why people are anxious to stay on disability benefits.
    Originally posted by krisskross
    But if he receives DLA then if he applied for JSA instead of ESA he would receive 1100 a month minus the difference between JSA and ESA (if any), so, would receive, what? 1100?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim's to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,026Posts Today

7,254Users online

Martin's Twitter