Joy! An ESA50.

NASA_2

cit_k wrote: »

Its a paradise for the sad people who bully people on benefits, obviously not a paradise for those people who have to put up with the benefit bashing though.

Its a safe place to bash those who work with benefit claimants.

You've made some pretty !!!!!! claims on here in the past but I've never seen you speak out against personal attacks on people who work in benefit offices.

cit_k

NASA wrote: »

Its a safe place to bash those who work with benefit claimants.

You've made some pretty !!!!!! claims on here in the past but I've never seen you speak out against personal attacks on people who work in benefit offices.

Which compared to benefit bashing stuff is

a) not as common
b) usually based on a direct experience that led to the complaint about the person at the benefit office.

After all, 98% of decision makers dont do their job properly, ie illegally, so thats a lot of disgruntled people out there with quite valid claims to make.

Compared to benefit bashing, which is usually based on no evidence, is not backed up with any direct facts or evidence, and even if countered they rarely comeback with a response to discount what was said.

They tend to hit and run, like a coward.

NASA_2

cit_k wrote: »

Which compared to benefit bashing stuff is

a) not as common
b) usually based on a direct experience that led to the complaint about the person at the benefit office.

After all, 98% of decision makers dont do their job properly, ie illegally, so thats a lot of disgruntled people out there with quite valid claims to make.

Compared to benefit bashing, which is usually based on no evidence, is not backed up with any direct facts or evidence, and even if countered they rarely comeback with a response to discount what was said.

They tend to hit and run, like a coward.

Its usually based on the person being educationally sub-normal from what I can tell.

You dont know that 98% of DM's dont do their job properly so quoting that figure is pointless.

krisskross

[QUOTE=Anubis;45709074

There will be people on here who have been in and out of psychiatric wards for years, have seen specialist doctors for years have the necessary medical evidence. You don't get put in a psychiatric ward for nothing!

[/QUOTE]

I would beg to differ. When I worked in a mental health unit we had our revolving door patients. They used to get themselves admitted when they hadn't been paying rent, bills etc and often their flat was in a mess. They would stay in hospital until the social worker had sorted it all out and then go off with a cheery smile until next time. Usually about 4 months.

Anyway I thought you had me on ignore so why are you reading and responding to my posts?

cit_k

NASA wrote: »

Its usually based on the person being educationally sub-normal from what I can tell.

You dont know that 98% of DM's dont do their job properly so quoting that figure is pointless.

I do, Professor Harrington has stated that the majority of decision makers have been rubber stamping the ATOS report, ie without looking at the full evidence, in fact, he stated it occurs in 98 percent of cases, assuming DM's share the load equally, thats 98% of decision makers not doing their job properly.

NASA_2

cit_k wrote: »

I do, Professor Harrington has stated that the majority of decision makers have been rubber stamping the ATOS report, ie without looking at the full evidence, in fact, he stated it occurs in 98 percent of cases, assuming DM's share the load equally, thats 98% of decision makers not doing their job properly.

He gave an opinion that 98% rubber stamp ATOS decisions - like I said - its pointless quoting it as its only an opinion.

krisskross

cit_k wrote: »

No I provide facts and relavent info, you simply make assumptions and try to belittle other posters.

You STILL have not answered the question that was on topic near the start of the thread, your happy to bash people on benefits, lets see you provide some actual content to the debate for once by answering and countering my points made earlier.

What points are they then? I must have read your ramblings so often that I no longer notice them.

cit_k

NASA wrote: »

He gave an opinion that 98% rubber stamp ATOS decisions - like I said - its pointless quoting it as its only an opinion.

Based on evidence no doubt, or do you think he arrived at a figure of 98% of the top of his head?

He is not lord frued you know.

cit_k

krisskross wrote: »

What points are they then? I must have read your ramblings so often that I no longer notice them.

My initial reply to your post near the start of the thread.

Post number 6, as well as all the other points people have made.

Your the one claiming people are malingerers etc, but your not actually countering anything much that is said to you in reply.

krisskross

cit_k wrote: »

My initial reply to your post near the start of the thread.

Post number 6, as well as all the other points people have made.

Your the one claiming people are malingerers etc, but your not actually countering anything much that is said to you in reply.

I don't need to prove some people claiming IB/ESA are malingerers . I believe the DWP stats do that.