The Miracle of St George

MS1950

Generali wrote: »

I'll ignore your rather impressive level of pomposity and point you to the fact that The Guardian has also referred to this data:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/31/churches-ministers-perpetuating-myths-poverty

What you're choosing to 'ignore' my friend is not any 'pomposity' on my part but the only published sources of data on this issue that I cited.

And the best you can do is quote the Guardian referring to an unsourced claim by Grant Schapps:

"Grant Shapps, the Conservative party chairman, used an interview with the Sunday Telegraph to highlight figures apparently showing 878,300 people who were on incapacity benefit dropped their claims rather than complete a medical assessment".

You don't in any way think that it's more than curious that the 'figures' quoted in The Telegraph (said to be the 'latest government figures') published on March 30 2013 - mirror almost exactly figures contained in an article from the Sun published 28th April 2011?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...es-reveal.html

There's none so blind....

Generali

MS1950 wrote: »

What you're choosing to 'ignore' my friend is not any 'pomposity' on my part but the only published sources of data on this issue that I cited.

And the best you can do is quote the Guardian referring to an unsourced claim by Grant Schapps:

"Grant Shapps, the Conservative party chairman, used an interview with the Sunday Telegraph to highlight figures apparently showing 878,300 people who were on incapacity benefit dropped their claims rather than complete a medical assessment".

You don't in any way think that it's more than curious that the 'figures' quoted in The Telegraph (said to be the 'latest government figures') published on March 30 2013 - mirror almost exactly figures contained in an article from the Sun published 28th April 2011?

There's none so blind....

If you don't believe the numbers in the Torygraph perhaps you should take it up with them.

MS1950

Generali wrote: »

If you don't believe the numbers in the Torygraph perhaps you should take it up with them.

There's a long history of people trying to 'take up' with the Telegraph their fast and loose approach to 'facts and 'figures' on welfare benefits - here are just two examples:

http://fullfact.org/blog/incapacity_benefit_fit_to_work_telegraph_correction-2709

http://fullfact.org/blog/benefit_fraud_error_telegraph_correction-3186

But I'm 'taking it up' with you because you chose to post and embellish upon the Telegraph's latest claims.

Just the scale of the Telegraph's claims (whether or not they originated with Mr Schapps) - almost 1 million people withdrawing claims rather than undergo a test - without any 'source' published anywhere - particularly by the DWP who compile these figures - should suggest to anyone with functioning critical faculities that there's something 'not right' about this claim.

But you post it and refuse to even try to back it up?

Motive...?

Generali

MS1950 wrote: »

Motive...?

LOL. You really ascribe far more significance to this than is justified. It's hardly surprising I suppose.

I saw an article that I thought some people would find interesting so posted it here.

MS1950

Generali wrote: »

LOL. You really ascribe far more significance to this than is justified. It's hardly surprising I suppose.

I saw an article that I thought some people would find interesting so posted it here.

So that's it then - you just thought some people would find it 'interesting' - together with your added comments about 'miraculous' recoveries no doubt...

You don't think it's 'significant' when national newspapers - possibly spoonfed by the Chairman of the Conservative Party - publish preposterous claims about benefit claimants?

But you repeat them - and now make a snide insinuation that 'It's hardly surprising' (you 'suppose') that I might find it significant. However, since you don't spell out what you mean by this - just to put your mind at rest (in case that what you were trying to imply) I'm not in receipt of a penny piece of welfare benefits.

BobQ

The source of data for this story does appear to be a little vague and it does of course play to the Government's agenda to tighten up on those abusing the system.

The change in the assessment criteria is bound to have an impact on applications for assessment. If this stops the undeserving from claiming fine. But if the changes are just stopping those who were previously entitled from succeeding in a claim the question should not be how many but whether the changes are fair.

It will take more than a story in the Telegraph to convince me that genuine claimants are not being driven away along with those who were having a laugh. The assessment guide is below.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pip-assessment-guide.pdf

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

Kettle and black spring to mind, after all wasn't it dear ole Maggie that kicked off the party, financed by Black gold

Time to move on. There's a whole generation who nothing of that era.

Situation now is somewhat different.

MS1950

BobQ wrote: »

The source of data for this story does appear to be a little vague and it does of course play to the Government's agenda to tighten up on those abusing the system.

The change in the assessment criteria is bound to have an impact on applications for assessment. If this stops the undeserving from claiming fine. But if the changes are just stopping those who were previously entitled from succeeding in a claim the question should not be how many but whether the changes are fair.

It will take more than a story in the Telegraph to convince me that genuine claimants are not being driven away along with those who were having a laugh. The assessment guide is below.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pip-assessment-guide.pdf

The assessment document you've linked to is for 'Personal Independence Payments' (PIP) that is being introduced to replace 'Disability Living Allowance' (DLA) which mainly goes to disabled people already in work to help them with the extra costs that disabled people face in maintaining a job - transport costs, equipment, adaptions and other support.

The Telegraph article posted by 'Generali' is about Incapacity Benefit (IB) and the 'Work Capability Assessment' (WCA) administered by ATOS for the DWP - and in particular about the Telegraph's preposterous and unsupported claim that almost 1 million IB claimants have withdrawn their claims rather than undergo the WCA - a claim no one (including 'Generali') can come up with any evidence for.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

Kettle and black spring to mind, after all wasn't it dear ole Maggie that kicked off the party, financed by Black gold

That's what I'd always assumed but if you look at the numbers, big increases in the number of people 'on the sick' started during the 1974-9 Labour Government. In some ways that is logical as that's when unemployment figures first became contentious.

Sorry, I can't post a link but if you google it you'll see what I mean.

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Time to move on. There's a whole generation who nothing of that era.

Situation now is somewhat different.

But those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

I recall during the early 1990s the Tory Government introduced stricter controls on the eligibility criteria for Invalidity Benefits on the premise that many claimants were malingerers. They tried to deter people from claiming through aggressive assessments that were eventually discontinued as unacceptable. Of course these assessments are so much better.