IB

[Russethouse]

Fine. I have no disagreement with any of this posting but please refrain from making inflamatory postings about groups of people in general, when you clearly cannot sunstantiate your statement

I suspect you are assuming that I refer to all IB claimants in France where as I actually referred to 'feckless fiddlers' and I reserve the right to make defamatory statements about them.

Read what I wrote, please don't assume you think you know what I meant, it seems you don't.

[cassis]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

I suspect you are assuming that I refer to all IB claimants in France where as I actually referred to 'feckless fiddlers' and I reserve the right to make defamatory statements about them.

[/quote]

"Feckless fiddlers" - hard to prosecute for a defamatory statement unless they admit to being the self-same!

Yours

A Feckless Fiddler

PS My lawyer will be in touch

[ali-cat]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Fine. I have no disagreement with any of this posting but please refrain from making inflamatory postings about groups of people in general, when you clearly cannot sunstantiate your statement

I suspect you are assuming that I refer to all IB claimants in France where as I actually referred to 'feckless fiddlers' and I reserve the right to make defamatory statements about them.

Read what I wrote, please don't assume you think you know what I meant, it seems you don't.

[/quote]

Unfortunately the way your post was phrased you did appear to imply that all IB claimants in France were “feckless fiddlers” & it is therefore understandable why it received the reaction it did. I can't think of one posting that says there is no fraud in the system – of course there is, just like all other benefits – so maybe you should be a more careful with your wording or “moderate” your own posts a little more.

[Hagar]

[quote user="Puzzled"]

How many 'fraudsters' are there on Unemployment Benefit ?

[/quote]

If you accept the DWP figures then one hella-of-a-lot more than on IB

[quote user="Puzzled"]

I really wish the Government would make more of an effort to get those that really could  and should be working but won't, back to work first. [/quote]

Is not this exactly what the Green Paper says they are going to do ? Only difference is they would say "and should be working but are not".

Indeed the paper contains many more words on getting people on JSA back to work than on anything to do with IB - it was the media and the tory politicians that picked up the latter.

rgds

hagar 

[cassis]

[quote user="Hagar"][quote user="Puzzled"]

How many 'fraudsters' are there on Unemployment Benefit ?

[/quote]

If you accept the DWP figures then one hella-of-a-lot more than on IB

[/quote]

I thought that the whole point was that a lot of shirkers had moved off UB onto IB.  Not to diss the genuine cases, of course.  Meanwhile I'll carry on doin' the easy thing and laze about doin' nuthin' in France.

[Hagar]

Cassis,

It is way back on page 12 where the source is referenced - but I qoute

" The trend in numbers of sick or disabled claimants is flat, "

Indeed by far the biggest rise in IB claims (in %age terms) was in the thatcher years - I believe somebody else pointed out that this is where it all started.

rgds

Hagar

[Russethouse]

But IB had trebled between 1979 and 2002:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmworpen/401/40104.htm

Between 1979 and 2002 the numbers of people on incapacity benefits more then trebled to 2.7 million

from : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmworpen/401/40104.htm

It also notes that one an IB claimant is on IB for a year the average duration of their claim is 8 years.

So what happened to the nations health between 1979 and 2002, do we really believe that the increase is due to the worsening health of a nation, a sudden increase in accidents or what?

(Yes I know what happened: Mrs Thatcher !)

 

 

[Ron Avery]

They've been continually worried about how to manage their day-to-day life, been depressed and worried about the future and if they'd cope if they deteriorated or their partner became ill - or left them"

 

Sorry but isn't that a concern to a lot of people living in France and not one I would suspect that entitles them to any form of benefit?

 

 ... and how they'd manage if IB qualifications were changed". 

 

And there lies the rub, how will they cope if "they" stop their benefits.  Well they have nothing to worry about because if they are genuinely incapacitated and cannot work they will receive more benefits.  However, if  they can do work (the emphasis is now on the things that they can do instead of in the past what they cannot do) they will be found a job suited to their skills.

 Existing IB claimants who are genuinely unable to work will have nothing to fear and I really do not understand the howls of protest about these changes from the genuine claimants, who are you protesting for?  Those who could and can work but decided to move to France and not work and use IB as a cash cow?

If anyone does not really need  their benefits as some are now claiming, they are after all a payment made by a caring society to assist in the loss of earnings resulting from an illness and not a cash bonus, you don't have to claim them and you can notify the DWP of that fact without losing your IB status.[6]

 

EDIT if anyone thinks the font is odd sizes there is nothing I can do, its all a 3

[Hagar]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

But IB had trebled between 1979 and 2002:

(Yes I know what happened: Mrs Thatcher !)

[/quote]

RH - don't know why but you seem to be arguing with me whilst saying exactly the same thing.

My point is that the number of people on IB has basically not moved for the past 3-4 years and is now back to 2000 levels. The huge rises in IB claims were much before 1997.

The reason I quoted the figures is to counter the outright prejudice displayed in earlier statements such as

"Unfortunately, to massage the unemployment figures, for years this government encouraged the placement of people on IB who in all honesty shouldn't have been. "

"but it has been devalued by politicians using it to massage the unemployment figures and by the admitted huge numbers of idle scroungers who are taking advantage of it."

" The total cost is  £12.5 billion pa and increasing year by year - a massive increase in the last decade.   2.64 million claimants - clearly many are valid and the public would always support them,  but a large number of young claiments now, and many do not have a valid claim.  " 

"Lots of IB fraud about- even this useless government now admits it-"

"11 million people now support the rest of the population of 60+ million, including nearly 3 milion IB claimants."

"This goes directly back to the positive encouragement they received to do so to massage the unemployment figures. "

"Unfortunately for Gordon his not customary sense of mis-timing means he will now be trying to offload a raft of people with, at least on paper, a range of ailments and a poor health record"

"No, the real beneficiaries will be the extra civil servants in the 'managing change' teams " -

I could go on - but the one to cap them all for prejudice (unfortunately in the middle of an otherwise well argued post )

"If GPs really did their jobs properly how come half of South Wales is on IB ?"

rgds

hagar

 

[woolybananasbrother]

I think that we are all agreed then that IB cannot and should not be regarded as a long-term benefit except in the case of those who genuinely cannot work. Nor can it be seen as a substitute for work, but as a temporary support which will diminish when and if the person is able to undertake some sort of reasonable, paid work.

Which means that those living with conditions which might permit them to do some paid work will perhaps find themselves refused benefit unless they make themselves available for work, which means being in the UK.

Work does not necessarily mean in your original field but should be reasonable field. Thus someone who, for example, left teaching or the Civil Service early could perhaps turn their hands to antique dealing or woodwork. They would not expect to settle down to a lot of years on benefit because one field was closed to them.

Better to support people to get into work and stay there rather than settle to a life on benefits.

And so there is no real reason why the numbers receiving IB should not fall to pre-1979 levels or better.

 

 

[Ron Avery]

[quote user="Hagar"]

I could go on - but the one to cap them all for prejudice (unfortunately in the middle of an otherwise well argued post )"If GPs really did their jobs properly how come half of South Wales is on IB ?"

rgds

hagar

[/quote]

No prejudice at all Hagar, its well known that South Wales has one of the lowest unemployment figures in the UK and is one of the highest if not the highest areas of benefit claimants.  Source ITN BBC, Sky News, DWP you name it they will tell you.

Latest from the BBC 

"Merthyr is one of five south Wales areas in a top 10 of councils with the highest percentage of people on benefits for more than five years".

The other south Wales regions are Blaenau Gwent, Neath Port Talbot, Rhondda Cynon Taf and Caerphilly.

Why is pointing that out prejudice? How did that happen?  Well to start with a lot of doctors put redundant miners and steelworkers on IB instead of unemployment.  I make no judgement on those decisions at all just point out that if doctors really applied the rules that would not have happened  Is it a coincidence that a large proportion of fraud investigation is also undertaken in this area and some of the highest profile big time benefit fraudsters have also come from this area?

[Catalpa]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

They've been continually worried about how to manage their day-to-day life, been depressed and worried about the future and if they'd cope if they deteriorated or their partner became ill - or left them"

 

Sorry but isn't that a concern to a lot of people living in France and not one I would suspect that entitles them to any form of benefit?

[/quote]

Quite possibly. However the point is hardly relevant as I think it is a mistake to try to compare a freely made lifestyle choice which may not have worked as you would have wished with an unwelcome health problem which removes (for however long) the work and income choices that the fitter amongst us take for granted.

[woolybananasbrother]

The issue is how much you can work and earn and how much the taxpayer is needed to help out. The danger from the taxpayers point of view is not just shirkers but the energy sapping effect of benefits which create even greater dependence.

[Hagar]

[quote user="Ron Avery"][quote user="Hagar"]

I could go on - but the one to cap them all for prejudice (unfortunately in the middle of an otherwise well argued post )"If GPs really did their jobs properly how come half of South Wales is on IB ?"

rgds

hagar

[/quote]

No prejudice at all Hagar, its well known that South Wales has one of the lowest unemployment figures in the UK and is one of the highest if not the highest areas of benefit claimants.  Source ITN BBC, Sky News, DWP you name it they will tell you.

Latest from the BBC 

"Merthyr is one of five south Wales areas in a top 10 of councils with the highest percentage of people on benefits for more than five years".

The other south Wales regions are Blaenau Gwent, Neath Port Talbot, Rhondda Cynon Taf and Caerphilly.

Why is pointing that out prejudice? How did that happen?  Well to start with a lot of doctors put redundant miners and steelworkers on IB instead of unemployment.  I make no judgement on those decisions at all just point out that if doctors really applied the rules that would not have happened  Is it a coincidence that a large proportion of fraud investigation is also undertaken in this area and some of the highest profile big time benefit fraudsters have also come from this area?

[/quote]

Can't argue with most of that Ron - but Merthyr having "highest percentage of people on benefits..." is a long way from "half of south wales being on IB"

Eaxactly how diligent the local GP's were is a moot point - but we are talking about something that happened in the main 20+ years ago.

Your last statement about large proportion of fraud investigation and big time fraudsters is simply untrue. The serious fraud investigation team in south wales has been under threat of closure for at least 3 years because the workload in wales just does not justify their existence.  The highly specialised team members spend most of their time in Birmingham, the South Coast and London, the latter being where the vast majority of serious benefit fraud originates. Of the work they do in Wales it mostly involves investigating Post Offices on the fiddle big time.

rgds

hagar

 

 

 

 

[woolybananasbrother]

The one point that seems relevant to me is what happened after 1979: either systems definitions were changed or a massive fiddle was inititated by the State. If this is true,  then it seems that the pre 1997 figures are a resaonable target to achieve. Which means that the number of people obtaining IB but not being truly entitled to it actually runs into millions. and that the figures are still being massaged and that many people are on it because of the law of lethargy.

[woolybananasbrother]

I understand that a question was asked in the Commons recently concerning the number of people receiving IB who are living out of the UK. Did it get answer of weasel words?

[Gastines]

As well as the IB add on the baby boomers,a regular source of income?  Sad to say we have both ends of the scale in our family,one daughter working all the hours possible to keep a roof over her  and her daughters heads and not getting any help.apart from us. The other daughter and husband with a bad back!!! have an addition every 2 years. With the income they have coming in there is absolutely no way the lazy so and so will ever go to work as no job would generate what he gets sitting at home with his Playstation and TV. A Chinese style child cap at perhaps 2 ,for any child benefit would work wonders.

I fear the system is so out of control it would be impossible to correct as any stops on money would only have a negative effect on the children.

Figures massaged to keep the unemployment figures down perhaps. I often wonder who is creating the income to keep all these people in luxury and what are they producing these days in UK.?

Regards.

[Hagar]

[quote user="woolybananasbrother"]I understand that a question was asked in the Commons recently concerning the number of people receiving IB who are living out of the UK. Did it get answer of weasel words?[/quote]

Don't know why that should be - answer is easily available on DWP website.

Nov 2007 - 11,440 overseas residents in receipt of IB : 7,770 in receipt for 5 years or more

rgds

hagar

p,s, it hasn't been going up my much recently - less than 200 a year for the last few years

[Hagar]

Thinking  about that overseas figure again - although the figures are small, when compared to all the UK regions, it is probably the only figure that has been increasing year on year for the last 8 years.

What does that tell us ?

Once someone on IB leaves the country they are far less likely to stop claiming IB than if they had stayed in the UK?

rgds

hagar

[ali-cat]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

 

If anyone does not really need  their benefits as some are now claiming, they are after all a payment made by a caring society to assist in the loss of earnings resulting from an illness and not a cash bonus, you don't have to claim them and you can notify the DWP of that fact without losing your IB status.[6]

[/quote]

Well Ron. If IB is to assist with loss of earnings due to illness then they have a long way to go to compensate for mine. What I did say was that IB for us was not critical which may not be the case for others. For your information DWP request and are provided annually with details of my medical retirement pension and as a consequence I receive one quarter the standard rate of IB – coincidentally almost exactly the sum I continue to pay in UK taxes. Presumably I'm allowed to keep the remaining quarter due to some calculation of what represents a liveable income. So hardly the lap of luxury but better than some.

By the way my original claim for IB was made when my occupational income ended and prior to the awarding of my retirement pension. Should I now state that I no longer require IB because I'm capable of working. I don't think so as that would be a fraudulent statement and we couldn't condone that now could we? It would also mean that, in the absence of being able to sign on for JSA, I would for all intents and purposes disappear off the government's books. Personally I would prefer the government to be reminded of the ongoing costs of people like me and maybe then they might consider commissioning some meaningful research into causes and treatment and maybe prevent tens of thousands ending up on benefits.

Mr Cat

 

[Grecian]

How depressing reading through this thread, so it is only the ‘fit’ that are allowed to fulfil their dream of moving and living in France, any ‘scumbag’ on IB need not apply. They even have the audacity of expecting their benefit to be exportable, whatever next, having paid their NI contributions all their lives, they are now expecting to take this benefit with them, disgraceful. I know let’s go the whole hog, and stop people taking their state pension with them as well, I mean why should it be paid for by the UK taxpayer, if they have chosen to live somewhere other than the UK?

 

Let us cast our minds back to pre November 23^rd 2007, when all hell was breaking on these boards, as the news was emerging that you had to serve a 5-year sentence before qualifying for entry in the CMU. We had all sorts of people posting how they were going to be thrown out of France, all trying to console each other, crying on each other’s shoulder. Then hey presto, it will only be newcomers who will be affected by the new ruling. A collective sigh of relief was breathed from all the ex-pats living in France. They then all reverted back to the ‘I’m all right Jack’ attitude and screw any newcomers. On top of all this are now preaching on these boards, that anybody on IB should not be allowed to join their club, because obviously their claim is fraudulent, and we don’t want you sort over here.

 

Well to all you smug people who are safely embedded in CMU, I sincerely hope you never have to go through the pain and now uncertainty, of not knowing when you have moved to France, and in receipt of IB, if you will in fact be able to live in your dream home for evermore, until 5 years has passed.

 

  

[woolybananasbrother]

Grecian, what a sad post. You miss the tone and point of the thread, I assume because lack summarizing and reading between the lines skills are your forte. The problem is that there are people out there who are NOT REALLY DESERVING of the IB who are living the life of Reilly in France. And ripping off the British taxpayer. Those who should have it are not condemned in any way.

On any count there are up to a million people receiving the benefit who should not be, some living in France. They need to be weeded out.

Or are you one of the saps who believes that anyone receiving a  benefit automatically has the right to it?

 

[Russethouse]

[quote user="Grecian"]

How depressing reading through this thread, so it is only the ‘fit’ that are allowed to fulfill their dream of moving and living in France, any ‘scumbag’ on IB need not apply. They even have the audacity of expecting their benefit to be exportable, whatever next, having paid their NI contributions all their lives, they are now expecting to take this benefit with them, disgraceful. I know let’s go the whole hog, and stop people taking their state pension with them as well, I mean why should it be paid for by the UK taxpayer, if they have chosen to live somewhere other than the UK?

 

Let us cast our minds back to pre November 23^rd 2007, when all hell was breaking on these boards, as the news was emerging that you had to serve a 5-year sentence before qualifying for entry in the CMU. We had all sorts of people posting how they were going to be thrown out of France, all trying to console each other, crying on each other’s shoulder. Then hey presto, it will only be newcomers who will be affected by the new ruling. A collective sigh of relief was breathed from all the ex-pats living in France. They then all reverted back to the ‘I’m all right Jack’ attitude and screw any newcomers. On top of all this are now preaching on these boards, that anybody on IB should not be allowed to join their club, because obviously their claim is fraudulent, and we don’t want you sort over here.

 

Well to all you smug people who are safely embedded in CMU, I sincerely hope you never have to go through the pain and now uncertainty, of not knowing when you have moved to France, and in receipt of IB, if you will in fact be able to live in your dream home for evermore, until 5 years has passed.

 

  

[/quote]

Grecian, No matter what any ones opinion the facts speak for themselves. The Uk government 'says' it is going to invest in getting those that can work in any capacity off IB. That may mean they go onto JSA which is not exportable in the long term as I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) From the googling I have done some people on IB actually welcome this, they want to work and want to see legislation that makes employers take on a certain number of disabled workers, actually enforced for example.

I don't know how clear I can make this, no one has said anything about those who genuinely deserve or  qualify for IB getting it. The people I (and others) object to are those that are receiving IB when they shouldn't be. This does not mean people who look healthy but are actually ill, it means people who are cheating.

Why genuine claimants have taken offense at this I just don't know - it's a bit like me as a tax payer sanctioning tax evaders. I really don't get it.

 

[cassis]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Grecian, No matter what any ones opinion the facts speak for themselves. The Uk government 'says' it is going to invest in getting those that can work in any capacity off IB. That may mean they go onto JSA which is not exportable in the long term as I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) From the googling I have done some people on IB actually welcome this, they want to work and want to see legislation that makes employers take on a certain number of disabled workers, actually enforced for example.

I don't know how clear I can make this, no one has said anything about those who genuinely deserve or  qualify for IB getting it. The people I (and others) object to are those that are receiving IB when they shouldn't be. This does not mean people who look healthy but are actually ill, it means people who are cheating.

Why genuine claimants have taken offense at this I just don't know - it's a bit like me as a tax payer sanctioning tax evaders. I really don't get it.

 [/quote]

I think this bears repeating.

[Benjamin]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

 

I don't know how clear I can make this, no one has said anything about those who genuinely deserve or  qualify for IB getting it. The people I (and others) object to are those that are receiving IB when they shouldn't be. This does not mean people who look healthy but are actually ill, it means people who are cheating.

[/quote]

Thank you for your unequivocal support of genuine benefit recipients. No one likes a cheat, especially those who are cheating their fellow human beings.

There have been blanket and implied condemnations of benefit recipients in this thread but now that you've made your position absolutely clear will we see you on the protests should any inequalities of assessment spring up during the Government's forthcoming implementation of the back to work campaign?

To make my position clear this household, whilst having received Incapacity Benefit in the past, no longer does, so there is nothing personal in my support of genuine claimants.

I saw a news item on yesterday morning's Breakfast program. It wasn't about benefits but about the withdrawal of a potentially lethal but nonetheless very useful painkiller. The person featured was a lady who suffered with Rheumatoid Arthritis. In all respects she looked perfectly normal; she was seen to walk down stairs, albeit a little painfully, and there also appeared to be a pushchair in thecorner of the room so possibly a Mum as well.

I know nothing about RA and I certainly have no mecical knowledge but it did make me think about some of the comments about just looking at people as some posters have commented and being able to decide if they "look" fit enough or not (and, no , Ron, I'm not on about the bloke repairing his roof).