More than 2,500 benefit claimants die after being found fit for work in just two years

Remember: the super-wealthy that control Britain don't work for a living and feel just dandy about themselves. Don't be ashamed or feel inadequate if you draw benefits. But do try to do something positive with your time.

I see people on here have a point about the system is so bad because of the abuse by the fraudulent but remember the Government is the most fraudulent entity on the Planet.
It exists to extort money and property off its own citizens or sends them off to fight in some manufactured horrible war whilst they sit at home lining their pockets from the military industrial complex whilst never having to actually fight in it themselves.
The system is the way it is and is deeply unfair to some of the poorest downtrodden individuals because the Government wants it that way.
All they do is cause division to stop us looking at who is really to blame which is them.
Another one is the migrant crisis which has everyone up in arms yet Ian Duncan Smith fails to tell you that the British Government armed ISIS to bring down Assad which left thousands of people fleeing their ancestral homes to a place they felt was the safest to go.
As soon as Cameron opens his mouth I want to smash my T.V. to peices at the utter hypocrisy he spouts but again what has been said by others is the general gullibility of the public to think this man really has their best interests at heart and is worthy of the position he is in that gets to me.
I feel the disgusting treatment of the unfit forced to work is an incremental barometer as to see how much the people can be manipulated into tolerating by demonizing certain sections of the community.

originally posted by: wwiilliiaamm
a reply to: tadaman

Tadaman, I agree with most of what you are saying. While some cheat, most do not. A few years back, the governor of Florida complained of the cheaters and the money (tax payer dollars). The state then instituted drug testing for all recipients. I think four people were found to be on drugs out of thousands. (a guess, but it was very small)

Why do I bring this up? The spouse of the the governor was the owner of the drug testing company. Rather than help people who need it, more money for the leaders.

I remember reading about this [I read it at Pharmer.org].
Many won't understand the significance of the situation.

According to this article 2,380 people died within six weeks of being found 'fit for work'.

www.independent.co.uk...

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Another meaningless number. What did they die of? Would they have died anyway? Was it going back to work that killed them?

Just as with the number in your OP from the painfully biased Mirror, it is utterly meaningless.

I could run with a thread titled "2.5 Million people DEAD in the UK since Cameron became PM" yet it would be utterly pointless without any kind of context. It is a fact - around 2.5 Million have died in the UK since Cameron became PM..

Now, we all know you've been banging the drum here for years and we know you bias, so it's understandable why you'd put a thread up like this. It is however doing you a disservice that you made no effort whatsoever to question the source, get some context and present a fair and balanced OP. I suspect, however, if you had done so, there wouldn't actually be a topic to write a thread about - the bottom line is, people die.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
According to this article 2,380 people died within six weeks of being found 'fit for work'.

www.independent.co.uk...

Actually, it says that and then does nothing to actually back up its claim. It uses the same two year period and then somehow surmises that all of those who died did so within 'weeks'. It even states in the URL that you provided that over 4,000 people died and then talks about under 3,000 - all over a two year period - do you read before providing the link?

ETA: Actually, as it's the Independent I'm surprised they didn't manage to squeeze in an editorial suggesting Israel was also to blame, but you go ahead using your unbiased links, right?

a reply to: stumason

It's strange though because initially no figures existed according to the DWP, but voila here you go, have these figures.

To be found fit for work and die within six weeks? Meaningless you say, okay I say, if you believe that, good for you.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
According to this article 2,380 people died within six weeks of being found 'fit for work'.

www.independent.co.uk...

Actually, it says that and then does nothing to actually back up its claim. It uses the same two year period and then somehow surmises that all of those who died did so within 'weeks'. It even states in the URL that you provided that over 4,000 people died and then talks about under 3,000 - all over a two year period - do you read before providing the link?

Says the resident medical expert on ATS.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: stumason

It's strange though because initially no figures existed according to the DWP, but voila here you go, have these figures.

To be found fit for work and die within six weeks? Meaningless you say, okay I say, if you believe that, good for you.

The figures existed, in the BBC link the DWP said that publishing them without context was meaningless but they complied with an FOI request - could you say how many died within six weeks and what their cause of death was? If you can't then it's a totally empty statement.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

It is totally meaningless without context and you're just digging up some rather dubious articles to try and support your position.

What were the causes of death? What proportion of people judged fit to work died within "weeks"? Would they have died anyway?

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

simply reguritating a variant of the same claim does not make it any more valid

originally posted by: ComplexCassandra

Au contrare.... most major social paradigm shifts in history were first birthed by like-minded individuals meeting to discuss "issues" with the status quo.

Okay, I'll concede that moaning about it on ATS and other digital media could ignite the spark of social revolution, then when enough people feel it with the same passion the paradigm shift you mention will occur.

I see many years for such change to happen if the campaign is still at the stage of people discussing their outrage online. Previous social change has always required the time of generational change, or protests, violence, and mass arrests.
Tiny percentage of people protesting about things like the OP in the UK right now.

Disclaimer: Of course people aren't like that anymore Mr NSA GCHQ. No revolutionaries here old chap.

Haha brilliant, I haven't been called that before!
I've been out of Crown service for a few years now, I'm self employed, pay the taxes I'm required to, and receive nothing from the state.
I have no problem with revolutionaries if the cause is a better world, but it takes more than expressing anger and outrage on ATS to create a revolution.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

It is totally meaningless without context and you're just digging up some rather dubious articles to try and support your position.

What were the causes of death? What proportion of people judged fit to work died within "weeks"? Would they have died anyway?

But that's the point isn't it?

Were they so Ill they would have died anyway, yet they were found fit for work. How does that work?

Yup, it's the governments job to take care of everyone, that's what they're there for. Why work? It's so inconvenient to wake up and do a stupid job that I'll never advance in. Besides, my ADHD really prevents me from focusing. Oh yeah, working really kicks off my anxiety as well. My back hurts too.

Staying at home and being taken care of by the government is the only thing I can do. I would work but.....my knees ache.

What's a really good reason for being declared unfit to work? People that work hard have all the same issues people that don't work have. There's one tiny difference. Self respect and work ethic.

a reply to: hammanderr

I'm all for people working, earning a decent wage and providing for themselves and their family. Only some can't you see simply because they are too ill to work, unfortunately that is the reality.

I feel that we have a duty to support the vulnerable, not treat them in a way where they are looked upon as a burden, the dregs of society.

If you can work, then you should, if you can't then if we can support business and some privileged family, then the least we can do is provide a safety net for those that can't.

I appreciate not everyone feels this way, the last General Election proves that.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: hammanderr

I'm all for people working, earning a decent wage and providing for themselves and their family. Only some can't you see simply because they are too ill to work, unfortunately that is the reality.

I feel that we have a duty to support the vulnerable, not treat them in a way where they are looked upon as a burden, the dregs of society.

If you can work, then you should, if you can't then if we can support business and some privileged family, then the least we can do is provide a safety net for those that can't.

I appreciate not everyone feels this way, the last General Election proves that.

So back up that statements you are posting about - stop with the whinge and come up with facts. If you do then more people may actually listen, but at the moment you are saying a straw sample of people died in a two year period - that means absolutely nothing on its own, nothing. Go and rant in a corner if you don't understand that not everyone will latch on to something from the Mirror. You could though if you are so vehemently opposed to the Conservatives ask yourself how many troops died under the last labour government - go for it, give us a figure for that.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: hammanderr

I'm all for people working, earning a decent wage and providing for themselves and their family. Only some can't you see simply because they are too ill to work, unfortunately that is the reality.

I feel that we have a duty to support the vulnerable, not treat them in a way where they are looked upon as a burden, the dregs of society.

If you can work, then you should, if you can't then if we can support business and some privileged family, then the least we can do is provide a safety net for those that can't.

I appreciate not everyone feels this way, the last General Election proves that.

So back up that statements you are posting about - stop with the whinge and come up with facts. If you do then more people may actually listen, but at the moment you are saying a straw sample of people died in a two year period - that means absolutely nothing on its own, nothing. Go and rant in a corner if you don't understand that not everyone will latch on to something from the Mirror. You could though if you are so vehemently opposed to the Conservatives ask yourself how many troops died under the last labour government - go for it, give us a figure for that.

Why don't you start your own thread about that and I will comment. Cheers.

Edit - I notice, you have never actually started a thread, so there you go, that could be your first.

originally posted by: uncommitted
So back up that statements you are posting about - stop with the whinge and come up with facts. If you do then more people may actually listen, but at the moment you are saying a straw sample of people died in a two year period - that means absolutely nothing on its own, nothing.

I tried to help the OP with a reasoned calculation of the mortality rate of those deemed fit for work compared to general population in my reply here, it was ignored though.
OP does not appear to appreciate reasoned discussion in place of tabloid outrage.
Usual emotionally inspired argument with little substance.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: uncommitted
So back up that statements you are posting about - stop with the whinge and come up with facts. If you do then more people may actually listen, but at the moment you are saying a straw sample of people died in a two year period - that means absolutely nothing on its own, nothing.

I tried to help the OP with a reasoned calculation of the mortality rate of those deemed fit for work compared to general population in my reply here, it was ignored though.
OP does not appear to appreciate reasoned discussion in place of tabloid outrage.
Usual emotionally inspired argument with little substance.

No, I never ignored it. I didn't reply, but I didn't ignore it.

You stated that the National Average of people dying in the same time period was 500+ per 100,000 of the population. Then you pointed out that the death rate of the people found 'fit for work' was 200+ per 100,000.

Now that appears well below average, but these 200+ people would have been part of the 500+ (they would have been included in the total deaths). Therefore I calculate 40% of the total deaths, were of people found fit for work, in the same time period. Or am I not calculating that right?

a reply to: southbeach

That is a valid point. The problem with government corruption is people only get upset about it and make an issue of it when the party they don't like like is in power. It's so bad it would take everyone coming together, keeping a close eye on it, and getting outrage and making demands on all of it , won't happen. So because people won't ever do that they are accepting it. So be it.
But at the same time you can't excuse corruption in other systems because as you said the government is more corrupt. The fraud in these programs taint them for those who need it. That's reality. Get upset at the real fraud, scream to put the abusers in prison, etc. Because until everyone does and the fraud in these programs stops. Those who need the help will be scrutinized, fair or not. Government corruption, forget it, people have already chosen to accept that.