First Suicide Due To Bedroom Tax Reported

Could you give a general sense of their predicament other than they are homeless?
Have they mental health issues? drug/alcohol issues? are they as 'straight' as they come?
I'm not saying children are never removed from their homeless parents, I am saying there has to be some particular reason, and not just due to being homeless.

I've never tried to work that one out, to be honest.

I have heard/read the suggestion that all benefit claimants are being demonised.

In the 'red tops' / tabloids it's always the ones who are taking the Michael.

In the more 'liberal' media all benefit claimants are being demonised by pretty much the whole of society, apparently.
That goes for certain people, who shall remain nameless, who leap onto that argument and suggest all benefit claimants are being demonised.

This for e.g: (The Guardian) Tory ministers have repeatedly implied disdain for non-workers with references to policies to help 'hard-working families'

(I think Labour and the Lib Dems have talked about 'hard working families' too)

How tenuous can you get?

There are obviously other e.g's.

To me, it is just oppositional political rhetoric.

I don't think the majority of people (including politicians) think benefit claimants are - well, what ever negative term you prefer.

It's not going to benefit (pardon the pun) certain groups (such as shelter) if they say that there is a fair range of opinions, and that the majority of people don't have a negative opinion of benefits claimants.

I would imagine we all know our fair share of people that take the p***, and more people that don't, and genuinely do need the support.

 

Like the Tory MP quoted above perhaps ? Aren't people like him the real ones taking the piss ? They have plenty of everything, yet still demand more...while at the same time introducing policies that make life harder for those at the bottom of the pile.

Wouldn't you call that taking the piss ?

 

odonII's technique is to slice things into smaller and smaller pieces, concentrating on single points to the extent that the bigger picture is lost and the subject derailed.

So he's more intent on trying to prove that the government aren't to blame for a woman's suicide because she may have had mental health issues, while ignoring the possibility that the same government's policies may have contributed to the mental illness in the first place. Or that she's not the only case.

Whether he's actually a shill or not, I dont know...but I have to admit I've wondered the same more than once.

 

I can understand why he wouldn't want to get home late (possibly after midnight) on a Monday evening, and then have to get back early Tuesday morning (around 8am).
But, yes, it is a bit of a liberty when job seekers are expected to travel up to 90 minutes (don't get me started on that), and only being 'let off' if they have one leg and no bus pass (possibly a little bit of an exaggeration).
So there is one rule for them and one rule for us (as it were).
I suppose they would say that all MP's are being treated the same.
The fact that they can claim £120 a NIGHT is certainly taking the piss.
That's roughly what some people have to survive on a FORTNIGHT, and that can be taken away at the click of a button (don't get me started on that one, either).

It doesn't negate/justify the fact some benefit claimants take the piss, though.

He certainly should be paying for it himself.
Isn't there bed and breakfasts for a third of £120 in London?

I think what is worse/unfair is to take individual cases and overly generalise.
If individual cases are being used then I don't feel it is unfair to 'slice' into the details of those e.g's.
I can't help preferring detail over the 'bigger picture'.
The details do matter.

I do not think I have mentioned any possible mental health issues she may or may not have had, and the role it may or may not have had in her demise..
So, unless you can point to where I have - please don't put words into my mouth.
I think I have mentioned the fact she says that she said she was 'weak'.
I didn't say 'the government' didn't have some role in her suicide, so please do not suggest I have not acknowledged some of their responsibility (however begrudgingly, and not because it is 'the government').
I acknowledged what ever I may feel, and as much as it may be 'sliced', she felt it was 'the government' to blame, and I have, pretty much, accepted that has to be the reality.

It is an e.g of taking an individual case and overly generalising.

I think approx 600,000 tenants are affected, and who knows how many are already affected (and have been for years) that have to add to their rent when paying private landlords (what I like to call 'the forgotten').

I do ponder if you work for either Unite, TUC, ICTU, AfF, CSEU, or the Labour Party (maybe all of them).
I just don't agree with your every point - get over it

 

it certainly does if you look at the percentages… fraudulent benefits claimants constitute some ridiculously small percentage of all claimants… something like 0.003% a figure that doesn't justify the kind of demonisation we have been getting from mainstream media etc... when you take a look at the criminal and fraudulent activities of the Government and their buddies, on the massive and global scale in which they operate (i'm not just talking of the fraudulent expenses, oh no, their criminality spans a far larger arena and with a greater range of far more heinous crimes), the two just don't compare…

 

I think the whole 'demonisation' is a little over-egged (as I attempted to indicate earlier)

So to get some perspective, benefit fraud represents 2% of the estimated total annual fraud in the UK. Public sector fraud, which includes benefit fraud, is £20.3 billion a year, so within this category it accounts for just under 8%. The majority of this £20 billion is tax fraud which costs the economy £14 billion annually, or 69%. So we can see that both in absolute and percentage terms tax fraud is a much bigger issue than benefit fraud. In fact, out of all the categories of fraud calculated by the UK Government, benefit fraud is the second lowest. Only identity fraud which costs individuals £1.4billion a year comes below it.

http://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud

This year’s Annual Fraud Indicator has put the loss to the UK economy
from fraud at £73 billion. This level of loss impacts every part of
society, including the most vulnerable. It represents money that
individuals, businesses and Government can ill afford to lose ending
up in fraudsters’ pockets.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/118530/annual-fraud-indicator-2012.pdf

Not taking into consideration the people that are not technically defrauding but shouldn't really be claiming (if they had a moral compass pointing in the right direction)

UK Government figures have stated that the proportion of fraud stands at 0.7% of the total welfare budget in 2011/12

2010/11: 5.7% claimant error, 2.4% claimant fraud.

I wasn't really making a comparison.
You can't really make any kind of comparison if you are comparing one issue with 20-30 issues.

 

^^^ i was comparing the fraudulent activities of claimants with the fraudulent activities of the Government… why should the poorest in this country suffer and pay for the richest's supposed mistake, although i don't see it as a mistake, but as a regular harvest of what they perceive as their assets? Why is the focus on the poor… and FYI i personally know two people in wheelchairs who have been violently attacked on the streets this year and last year, because of the attackers perception of disabled people… that they are weak and a drain on finances… nice huh? before Austerity measures i have not heard of this happening… so your assertion that demonisation has not occurred is pure fantasy on your part.

 

oh, and the biggest fraudsters are the Governments, the Royals and many Corporations, who's only concern is profit… fuckin' psychopathic behaviour imo… and you are part of the attempt at minimising knowledge and damage… you must feel real good about yourself mate...

 

Dont get me started on that... well perhaps you should get started on those. Because they are happening every day to people who cant claim for everything under the Sun, people who dont own several houses and still claim hotels off the taxpayer, but people who are told how much space they are allowed to live in and are fined if they exceed it (even more unfair because it's a retrospective law - most of those affected took their tenancies before the law was introduced).

OdonII I'm disapointed at your grasp of contemporary politics - the Labour Party ! For a long time now they've been right of centre and accelerating. They're cut from the same cloth of political class as the other main parties.

Likewise the unions, most of whom are spineless nowadays. I am a member of a union, but one of the more principled ones - its doesn't fund nor is it allied to any political party, nor is it part of the TUC.

Perhaps you should have called me a commie faggot or something our American readers could identify with (though, for the record, I'm neither a commie or a faggot).

 

Coincidentally, came across this account by one of those drains on the economy who pretended to be disabled but was declared fit to work by ATOS...

Notwithstanding, the government keep telling claimants that £71.20 is the amount of money needed to live on, yet i do not even receive this and was declared disabled for life after an accident at work…………….

My hands are riddled with rheumatoid arthritis and i have problems wiping my backside. I wear disposable pads that hide the fact i cannot hold my bladder sometimes when rising from a sitting position.
I purchase the pads and any medication i need from my own pocket, finding it cheaper than expensive prescriptions.

Since my DLA has been stopped i cannot afford these “luxuries”, and have been stuffing old newspapers down the front of my pants.
As a result of this i have become sore and developed thrush around my genitals. The tops of my legs have become red raw and a sickly sweet smell is evident.
Behind my foreskin is also red raw and i am discharging liquid. When i urinate i get a burning sensation in my penis.
I am not sure if the infection on my genitals is connected to having an ability to wipe my bottom properly, it could be a cross contamination of some kind.

i have developed bad gumboils in my mouth. I am not sure if it is to do with my genital infection or eating bad foods.

There are many fantastic adverts on our tv sets showing the finest of christmas cuisine, but this is a luxury that me and my family will never be able to afford. Todays menu will be the same as yesterday, an onion ring sandwich, and out of date at that…………………….

The physical abuse that is being directed at persons with a handicap is no joke. The biggest perpetrators are our own DWP. It seems to have developed into a national sport where the criteria seems to include, who can do the most evil to someone in dire circumstances.

No doubt there will be people just waiting to ridicule what i write, these are the people who sit back and poke fun at those in the weakest position, those not able to fight back.

Please feel free to ridicule, as it is you, and not i, who needs help badly. You have succumbed to the lowest base possible……………………….

“THE TRUTH HURTS THOSE WHO TRY TO CONTAIN IT



One of those people taking the piss out of the system ?
Well he must be, because the system has declared him fit for work.
And the system doesn't make mistakes, does it ?

 

I think you were comparing the fraudulent activities of claimants (one issue) and: (to quote) fraudulent activities of the Government and their buddies, on the massive and global scale in which they operate (i'm not just talking of the fraudulent expenses, oh no, their criminality spans a far larger arena and with a greater range of far more heinous crimes) (more than one issue).
If we were to compare the broader criminal activity of the UK population and the criminal activity of 'the government' then it would be fair.
But, I didn't think we were.

No, not nice.
I didn't say 'demonisation' wasn't occurring.
I was attempting to say that just because of certain e.g's it does not mean that the vast majority of politicians and the general public 'demonise' benefit claimants (and the disabled, if you wish) as a whole.
You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Where did I say it did not occur?
I said (to paraphrase, and pick me up on any point that wasn't that clear) the issue was over-egged, the argument for that was convenient, that it serves no purpose to/for certain groups/people to say that there is a wide and varied opinion, and that certain interested parties focus on a few e.g's or try and suggest, due to certain e.g's, it is more wide spread than it is, or/and it is the general feeling amongst society.
A myriad of opinions rather than just one or two opinions.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/nov/04/childrensservices.homelessness

 

i thought we were looking at the culpability of our corrupt Government… if you look at crimes that people are being incarcerated for, they are as a direct result of the impossible situations and extraordinary stresses our shit leaders are putting ordinary people under imo...

 

To a certain degree, yes we were looking at the culpability in a particular e.g (Although there really isn't anywhere to go on that e.g.)
But I thought you/we had shifted to a comparison.

Thanks. I understand where you are coming from now.
Although, it doesn't say any children were put into care.
I suppose you can't really divulge the details of the people you actually know.

Your 'link' is over a decade old (2001)
My reference points (on this) don't really start that far back.
This is a good comparison of then and now, I guess...

Then (media spin):

Cash-strapped councils, short of housing, won legal challenges to a 10-year-old requirement to help families with children in need. They say that housing parents as well goes beyond their legal obligation.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/nov/04/childrensservices.homelessness

Now (why I was so adamant 'they' kept families together):

Homelessness: BnB hoteliers doing very nicely, thank you
Faced with a £1m-and-rising hotels bill, a London council wants the law changed to reduce its obligations to homeless people.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...d-breakfast-law-change-hammersmith-and-fulham

It really shouldn't be about money, but sadly it seems to be.

http://www.karenbuck.org.uk/

 

yup… sadly it's all about the money…