26 Comments »

1. Hi
   With regard to the goverments talks about reducing the amount of people on incapacity benefit, i myself am diabled with back and leg problems due to a fall from a roof whilst working a few years ago, however i personally would suggest to the goverment an easy way to reduce the amount of people on incapacity benefit, and this is my suggestion, firstly drug users (ADDICTS) SHOULD NOT BE PAID INCAPACITY BENEFIT AS THIER PROBLEM IS SELF INFLICTED, AND PAYING THEM INCAPACITY BENEFIT JUST GIVE"S THEM MORE TO SPEND ON DRUGS, SECONDLY ALCOHOLICS DRINK PROBLEM SELF INFLICTED SHOULD NOT GET INCAPACITY BENEFIT AS MORE MONEY MEANS MORE DRINK,IF JUST THESE TWO GROUPS WERE NOT PAID INCAPACITY BENEFIT IT WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE ON INCAPACITY BENEFIT BY ABOUT 60%

   Comment by MR.FREDRICK SMITH — 6 Feb 2005 on 2:26 pm | Link

2. Mr Smith,

   my first point is you should get your facts straight. There are about 150,000 people claiming incapacity benefit who could be classed as heavy drinkers and about 30,000 who use adictive drugs. So thats 180,000 people out of about 2.8 million or around 6% not 60%! (see http://www.dwp.gov.uk/jad/2004/w193rep.pdf) You also shouldn’t assume that drug or alcohol misuse are the reasons that they are claiming benefits; they might also be disabled or suffer from a range of conditions that have resulted in them ending up on benefits.

   My second point why shouldn’t some people get benefits just because you think their condition is self inflicted? It could be argued that you going onto a roof was taking a risk in the same way that an alcoholic took a risk when they drank their first drink. People could argue that what happened to you was in some way self-inflicted. I don’t know anything about you and I’m not trying to offend but once you start making uninformed and arbitrary moral judgements about who ‘deserves’ help then you automatically place yourself at risk of being classed as ‘undeserving’ by other people.

   Incapacity Benefit is there to support people who cannot work – for whatever medical condition.

   Comment by Uncarved Block — 7 Feb 2005 on 8:04 pm | Link

3. Mr Smith’s comments are precisely those of one who is very ignorant to the causes and consequences of drug and alcohol abuse. To state that the drug addict and alcoholic are not deserving of incapcity benefit because their condition is self inflicted is laughable. Whilst Mr Smith is correct on one basis, the fact that in a physical sense, these drugs are self administered, he is completely ignoring the mental aspect of addiction. Addicts are mentally unable to put down the drik and drugs. I myself have suffered through years of alcohol abuse. I was driven to the point of suicide. However, for someone to tell me that I was not deserving of benefits because I was inflicting myself to this torture is like me declaring that someone with a mental disability should just try harder – ludicrous. People are all too willing to give an opinion on matters where there have o personal experience.
   Just for the record. I am on Higher rate incapacity benefit long term, and am now easing myself back into work by doing some voluntary work after 6 months of intensive rehabilitation. I am now 8 months dry. So much for the self inflicting addict who just wants to use his benefit money to drink!

   Comment by Jason McElroy — 2 Mar 2005 on 10:18 am | Link

4. I feel very sorry for Mr Smith, as it must be very difficult to venture through life being ignorant and narrow minded. I wonder how many poor suffering smokers of nicotine are currently recieving Incapacity Benefit due to their "self inflicted addiction!". 11 months ago I was in active addiction of alcohol and drugs now I am gratefully clean and sober. I am attending college and taking a pre access course on Welfare Studies and Sociology so as I can help other people who suffer from the same disease as me, also to educate people like you Mr Smith who obviously live in a world of False Evidence Appearing Real! I hope you recover from your fall and pray that you do not get addicted to any of your medication as many men and women have, fact!

   Comment by Trevor Lysandrou — 4 Mar 2005 on 1:42 pm | Link

5. While some of the comments made on this page may weel be true (addiction and so forth) may I point out that where I live (Carmarthen) there are many people who have told me that they do not wish to stop drinking and gloat at the fact that I go to work for my money and they claim their money from the Government (my pocket in reality). There are many people on the dole in Carmarthen (some I’ve never seen working in 9 years I’ve been here) and don’t want to because they are better off on benefits. Surely we should eb doing something as responsible society to stop this going on and then may be our taxes will come donw a bit.

   Comment by Scott Wright — 20 Jun 2005 on 3:17 pm | Link

6. I am in agreement and not in agreement with all that has been said. At present i am in a situation where my Mother in law is suffering from alcohol abuse and has been for the last 30 years. At present she stands to lose everything this includes her house. I have tried to request support and keep being told that until she declares her addiction i cannot do any thing more. By offering some financial help it would at least go some way to her reabilitation. Even her doctor just gave her some tablets and told her to go away. Not very helpful. Alcoholism effects family as well so perhaps the family should receive the benefits so that my Mother in law can get help from her family.

   Comment by Ewan Robson — 29 Aug 2005 on 12:28 am | Link

7. Mr.Scott Wright, you say these people are better off on benefits then you go on to say as a society we should do something to stop simply idle people claiming benefits! Even if we were successful in dropping the number of people claiming these benefits I can assure you that under control of the present government or any party which takes office our taxes will certainly not drop(I am only 15 and realize this)! This extra money shall surely be spent on another bogus project such as the millennium dome, which cost just under \xA31 billion. So I hate to burst your bubble but even although your intentions are good the only people who will win shall be the government. I completely understand where you are coming from as my family works and also have to pay for these people but this man is rightfully claiming benefits as being an alcoholic hinders or may even prevent him from finding a job. It is difficult to say who does and doesn\x92t deserve benefits.

   Comment by Miss Moffat — 28 Sep 2005 on 8:12 pm | Link

8. I think a big distinguishing comment must be made here about what constitutes an alcoholic and what constitutes a "heavy drinker". Someone who is truly alcoholic is affected by a condition that they have no control over. It is within them from birth (ok- this is open to debate) and is not ‘beaten’ by will power or simply pullign oneself together and gettign work. It is a true debilitating disease as the alcoholic discovers that when they wish to stop drinking, it is not possible. The difficuly however does arise when determining those who are heavy drinkers (usually by habit) an dthose who suffer with th eillness. I for one would not like to publicly differentaite (however am fairly confident tat I can recognise true alcoholism when I see it).

   Comment by Jason McElroy — 14 Oct 2005 on 12:00 am | Link

9. After being on Incapacity Benefit for the past 5 years (initially after an accident where I broke both legs in 11 places, had a steel bar go through my kidney, and suffering injuries to my hands and face – does this count as "self-inflicted"? and then as a result of depression and suicide attempts brought about by the isolation and poverty caused by being on this benefit), I was given a council flat in a Conservative controlled borough. I was instantly hit with bills for contribution towards my rent and council tax in addition to having to pay for any dental work and prescription charges (which seems ironic, as those on Incapacity Benefit by DEFINITION require regular prescriptions, so why are we made to pay for them, when other benefits exempt you from them?).

   I now face the real risk of being made homeless, because my benefit does not cover the additional costs for contributions which I am being asked to pay.

   This is not a case of poor budgeting, or expensive habits, as firstly I worked as an accountant for 15 years before my accident, so know how to budget better than most, and secondly I have been forced to live as a virtual hermit, so no drink, drugs or socialising expenses here.

   I tried to speak to the local council about my situation and to see if I could get help and was told "It is the policy of most Conservative councils to not give help to those on Incapacity Benefit in an attempt to force them back to work, or to move out of the area".

   When I spoke to the benefits agency regarding the chances of ever coming off Incapacity Benefit, I was told "I have seen literally hundreds of people on Incapacity Benefit for a genuine reason end up staying on this benefit for the rest of their lives because of depression and / or suicide attempts from the despair they feel from being on this benefit. Once someone is on Incapacity Benefit, unless they have a very good support system from family or friends, that can help them, then they WILL remain on this benefit for the rest of their lives, and will not be given any help from the government to retrain or have any real chance to come off it."

   It seems that the official line is to force people on this benefit to become so depressed and demotivated that they either go back to work before they are able, or (if they are unable to work) to end up committing suicide.

   Comment by Nick Grace — 21 Jun 2006 on 7:02 am | Link

10. Mr Grace raises a very pertinent point about the anomaly in the Incapacity Benefit system. Those whom have been maintaing their NI contributions and are unable to work are entitled to receive Inacapcity Benefit. Those whom have not been able to contribute for whatever reason are entitled to Income Support based on incapacity for work. The difference between these is that one is means tested (IS) whilst those on IB are entitled to have whatver capital and still claim. Now you do not have a choice which one of these you go on as if you are entitled to a contributionary based benefit (as IB) is, then you must go on it over the non-contributory based ones.
    There is a minimal difference in benefit amount for the first 6 months, with I.S. giving people ethe minimum amount that the govt says someone needs to live on, whilst IB will draw slightly more. The 6 months period sees another slight rise in IB and then a further rise after 1 yr (dependent upon age). There is one rise in IS, and this occurs after 1 years and will take a claimant to receipt of benefit of just over \xA380 (as an incapacity premium is included after a yr meaning that the govt agree that you need more to live on) . But because IS is a non-contributory benefit, it is also known as a passport to other benefits. This means that automatically those on IS are entitled to full Housing and Council Tax benefits, social fund grants and free prescriptions. Those on IB, will have to pay 65% of the differemce between what their benefit is (can be \xA393 for a 25 yr old) and what the govt say they need to live on (about \xA380.00) toward theor rent, and 20% toward their council tax, plus prescriptions are not free, and one is not eligible for SF grants. The only ones who benefit are those whom have savings, as they can keep their savings and draw the benefit.

    This may seem like a long-winded paragraph, and even taking into account the permission granted to work under 16 hrs per week without a benefit reduction, on IB, the IB v IS issue is clearly weighted againyst those whom must claim IB (and therefore been contributing),and have no savings.

    I urge people to claim Dicretionary Housing Payment where they can, but as Mr Grace has found out, this is at the discretion of the Council and their is no right of appeal.

    Comment by Jason McElroy — 7 Aug 2006 on 11:25 pm | Link

11. Mr Grace raises a very pertinent point about the anomaly in the Incapacity Benefit system. Those whom have been maintaing their NI contributions and are unable to work are entitled to receive Inacapcity Benefit. Those whom have not been able to contribute for whatever reason are entitled to Income Support based on incapacity for work. The difference between these is that one is means tested (IS) whilst those on IB are entitled to have whatver capital and still claim. Now you do not have a choice which one of these you go on as if you are entitled to a contributionary based benefit (as IB) is, then you must go on it over the non-contributory based ones.
    There is a minimal difference in benefit amount for the first 6 months, with I.S. giving people ethe minimum amount that the govt says someone needs to live on, whilst IB will draw slightly more. The 6 months period sees another slight rise in IB and then a further rise after 1 yr (dependent upon age). There is one rise in IS, and this occurs after 1 years and will take a claimant to receipt of benefit of just over \xA380 (as an incapacity premium is included after a yr meaning that the govt agree that you need more to live on) . But because IS is a non-contributory benefit, it is also known as a passport to other benefits. This means that automatically those on IS are entitled to full Housing and Council Tax benefits, social fund grants and free prescriptions. Those on IB, will have to pay 65% of the differemce between what their benefit is (can be \xA393 for a 25 yr old) and what the govt say they need to live on (about \xA380.00) toward theor rent, and 20% toward their council tax, plus prescriptions are not free, and one is not eligible for SF grants. The only ones who benefit are those whom have savings, as they can keep their savings and draw the benefit.

    This may seem like a long-winded paragraph, and even taking into account the permission granted to work under 16 hrs per week without a benefit reduction, on IB, the IB v IS issue is clearly weighted againyst those whom must claim IB (and therefore been contributing),and have no savings.

    I urge people to claim Dicretionary Housing Payment where they can, but as Mr Grace has found out, this is at the discretion of the Council and their is no right of appeal.

    Comment by Jason McElroy — 7 Aug 2006 on 11:25 pm | Link

12. INCAPACITY BENEFIT IS MEANS TESTED – BELIEVE IT
    It is incorrect to say that that Incapacity Benefit (IB) is not means tested.It is just that some mealy mouthed words separate the terminology.
    Although your savings & investments are not considered for IB a personal pension (company stakeholder etc) that you have slaved for can reduce the IB amount you are entitled to nothing -"A nil award".
    In general figures IB is about \xA370 weekly dependant on the the qualifying time:-
    So, your company pension(s) of -say- \xA3 225 a week before tax ( effectively about \xA3150 a week after tax depending on personal circumstances) precludes any IB on this formula:-
    \xA385 ‘allowance’ is firstly deducted from your taxable pension, therefore \xA3225-85 = \xA3140, Divide this amount by 2 = \xA370 and take this away from the IB award of \xA370 and you get an IB award of ZERO !!
    You can work your individual amount out using this basic maths eg \xA3185 pre tax pension minus\xA385 =\xA3100/2=\xA350
    giving an approximate IB award of \xA370-\xA350 =\xA320 a week
    HMGovernment would be a lot more honest if this type of basic calculation was publicised and they stopped saying it was not means tested and based only on your contributions.
    If you have a genetic or other condition that you know will mean having to go on IB at some future time you could gain by not saving for your future( exceptions apply before pointing the gun at the figures)
    Those on lower income or poor pensions would say that at \xA3150 a week you deserve nothing even if you have done the saving for it !- thats not the point- its the lack of transparency that’s part of the topic.
    So, if you some decent money in the bank because you have been prudent- you do not get Income Support due to means testing, if you have no money in the bank but a net pension of more than \xA3150 or so a week you also get nothing due to means teasting. Or as HMG would say "heads I win – tails you lose"

    Comment by Bill Mac — 14 Aug 2006 on 3:07 pm | Link

13. If that is true and i havn’t come across a reason to disbilieve it, a \xA3 225 a week pension before tax gives you zero IB award. Then what about national insurance contributions for somebody who has taken early retirement on grounds of ill health. If they a recieving a modest company pension they will recieve zero IB and on top will have of make NI contributions for the sake of their government pension. Also, IB might not be means tested like other benefits, but council tax benefit is, so on a modest company pension income you get no IB, cannot claim council tax or housing benefit because they are means tested. What is the alternative? Should they opt to claim for JSA. But JSA is means tested to an extent, isnt it? Can somebody suggest waht the best option would be for somebody in this curcumstance, please!

    Comment by Kalbinder — 22 Jan 2007 on 2:16 pm | Link

14. In answer to Bill Mac and Kalbinder regarding the reduction of IB when one receives pension income.
    I have mounted a legal challenge to the government via the appeals tribunal and it lies with the commisioner in London at the moment. However I am challenging the decision to reduce peoples IB when they have paid national insurance contributions all their lives and also recieve a pension income.I am not old enough for the state pension but have had to medically retire through no fault of my own having been employed for 40years and have my IB reduced under these disgusting new rules.
    I am using Human rights legislation under article one (the protection of property)for my arguement, and the fact that benefits can be regarded as property under this act and the fact that I am entitled to this benefit without reduction as I have contributed to the state national insurance fund in order to receive the benefit.
    I anticipate it going either to the High Court or European Courts as the Appeals Tribunal Commissioner will not have the jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
    It is nice to see that their are others out there who feel equally agrieved and understand the complexity of what this government is doing. I have sent a petition on this matter to Blairs new petition site. It is called IBPensreduction. It will be interesting to see whether it gets rejected or not. Keep your eye open for it and get it signed if it appears if you support my stance. We need to bring this injustice into the public domain for everybody that pays National Insurance Contributions who thinks they are going to get sickness benefit (IB) if they become ill or disabled later in life.People are going to be in for a big shock!
    Neil Hill

    Comment by Neil Hill — 20 Feb 2007 on 8:41 pm | Link

15. In answer to Bill Mac and Kalbinder regarding the reduction of IB when one receives pension income.
    I have mounted a legal challenge to the government via the appeals tribunal and it lies with the commisioner in London at the moment. However I am challenging the decision to reduce peoples IB when they have paid national insurance contributions all their lives and also recieve a pension income.I am not old enough for the state pension but have had to medically retire through no fault of my own having been employed for 40years and have my IB reduced under these disgusting new rules.
    I am using Human rights legislation under article one (the protection of property)for my arguement, and the fact that benefits can be regarded as property under this act and the fact that I am entitled to this benefit without reduction as I have contributed to the state national insurance fund in order to receive the benefit.
    I anticipate it going either to the High Court or European Courts as the Appeals Tribunal Commissioner will not have the jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
    It is nice to see that their are others out there who feel equally agrieved and understand the complexity of what this government is doing. I have sent a petition on this matter to Blairs new petition site. It is called IBPensreduction. It will be interesting to see whether it gets rejected or not. Keep your eye open for it and get it signed if it appears if you support my stance. We need to bring this injustice into the public domain for everybody that pays National Insurance Contributions who thinks they are going to get sickness benefit (IB) if they become ill or disabled later in life.People are going to be in for a big shock!
    Neil Hill

    Comment by Neil Hill — 20 Feb 2007 on 8:42 pm | Link

16. In answer to Bill Mac and Kalbinder regarding the reduction of IB when one receives pension income.
    I have mounted a legal challenge to the government via the appeals tribunal and it lies with the commisioner in London at the moment. However I am challenging the decision to reduce peoples IB when they have paid national insurance contributions all their lives and also recieve a pension income.I am not old enough for the state pension but have had to medically retire through no fault of my own having been employed for 40years and have my IB reduced under these disgusting new rules.
    I am using Human rights legislation under article one (the protection of property)for my arguement, and the fact that benefits can be regarded as property under this act and the fact that I am entitled to this benefit without reduction as I have contributed to the state national insurance fund in order to receive the benefit.
    I anticipate it going either to the High Court or European Courts as the Appeals Tribunal Commissioner will not have the jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
    It is nice to see that their are others out there who feel equally agrieved and understand the complexity of what this government is doing. I have sent a petition on this matter to Blairs new petition site. It is called IBPensreduction. It will be interesting to see whether it gets rejected or not. Keep your eye open for it and get it signed if it appears if you support my stance. We need to bring this injustice into the public domain for everybody that pays National Insurance Contributions who thinks they are going to get sickness benefit (IB) if they become ill or disabled later in life.People are going to be in for a big shock!
    Neil Hill

    Comment by Neil Hill — 20 Feb 2007 on 8:48 pm | Link

17. In answer to Bill Mac and Kalbinder regarding the reduction of IB when one receives pension income.
    I have mounted a legal challenge to the government via the appeals tribunal and it lies with the commisioner in London at the moment. However I am challenging the decision to reduce peoples IB when they have paid national insurance contributions all their lives and also recieve a pension income.I am not old enough for the state pension but have had to medically retire through no fault of my own having been employed for 40years and have my IB reduced under these disgusting new rules.
    I am using Human rights legislation under article one (the protection of property)for my arguement, and the fact that benefits can be regarded as property under this act and the fact that I am entitled to this benefit without reduction as I have contributed to the state national insurance fund in order to receive the benefit.
    I anticipate it going either to the High Court or European Courts as the Appeals Tribunal Commissioner will not have the jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
    It is nice to see that their are others out there who feel equally agrieved and understand the complexity of what this government is doing. I have sent a petition on this matter to Blairs new petition site. It is called IBPensreduction. It will be interesting to see whether it gets rejected or not. Keep your eye open for it and get it signed if it appears if you support my stance. We need to bring this injustice into the public domain for everybody that pays National Insurance Contributions who thinks they are going to get sickness benefit (IB) if they become ill or disabled later in life.People are going to be in for a big shock!
    Neil Hill

    Comment by Neil Hill — 20 Feb 2007 on 8:50 pm | Link

18. I went for an assessment for continuing IB recently and have had my IB stopped and A p45 sent to me with instructions to turn up at the Jobcentre plus. I sent the DWP a full psychiatric report which said that I could not work either part time or full time and this was ignored. I suffer from clinical depression and have been on IB for 5 years. I have been dumped inspite of paying NI contributions since 1969

    I am told I will have to appeal in three months time and with the help of the social work dept I hope to be successful.

    I have written to my MP who just happens to be the minister for Works and pensions and he is looking into it.

    It is all done by computer —called Lima and an organisation called Atos . Atos are paid a fee for everyone that goes back into work –a samll fee if part time and a big fee if full time.

    I only scored one point out of 10 which was utterly ridiculous. I felt not too bad on the day of the PCA so did not "ham it up" –perhaps I should have. My doctor said there is notihng he could do –He said it is political and that I was a "soft touch". DWP have the nerve to call us customers. I am sure that the system they use is no good for people with mental health problems and it will only get worse. Does anyone understand this? Does anyone have the same problem?

    Comment by bill ryding — 15 Mar 2007 on 5:03 pm | Link

19. I went for an assessment for continuing IB recently and have had my IB stopped and A p45 sent to me with instructions to turn up at the Jobcentre plus. I sent the DWP a full psychiatric report which said that I could not work either part time or full time and this was ignored. I suffer from clinical depression and have been on IB for 5 years. I have been dumped inspite of paying NI contributions since 1969

    I am told I will have to appeal in three months time and with the help of the social work dept I hope to be successful.

    I have written to my MP who just happens to be the minister for Works and pensions and he is looking into it.

    It is all done by computer —called Lima and an organisation called Atos . Atos are paid a fee for everyone that goes back into work –a samll fee if part time and a big fee if full time.

    I only scored one point out of 10 which was utterly ridiculous. I felt not too bad on the day of the PCA so did not "ham it up" –perhaps I should have. My doctor said there is notihng he could do –He said it is political and that I was a "soft touch". DWP have the nerve to call us customers. I am sure that the system they use is no good for people with mental health problems and it will only get worse. Does anyone understand this? Does anyone have the same problem?

    Comment by bill ryding — 15 Mar 2007 on 5:03 pm | Link

20. my husband is on full dla and high rate incapacity he has a brain illness which is terminal on long term i get cares plus top up of income surport but has his mony goes up mine goes down at the moment we just survive with 2 kids as well but once my income surport stops then thats a diferent matter why should his mony which he is entiltled to in his own right efect what i am intilted to in my own right for me and my kids as he doesnt get any mony for us he gets 78aweek and i get 47for cares allowence toped up with 8aweek incomesurport 70aweek child tax credit which is all added together when the benifits work out how much we r entilted to they tell u that help is there for cares yes there is but if u take the help u lose more mony and where do the goverment get that u only need a wage of 47aweek to look after your loved ones if we went to work the goverment states amin wage so why does this not apply to us as we r actually saving them thousands by doing the caring our selfs as you employ a carer through sosial services they get paid upto 8pound an hour and our cares is taxable and we r not allowed to go out and work if we found our selfs in a position to do so cos u then lose your top up no matter what u try to do to help your finances you get punished by there stystem all ways i wonder how mich it would cost the goverment if we all stoped looking after our loved ones and let the goverment do it at 10 times more the cost

    Comment by viv — 24 Mar 2007 on 5:06 pm | Link

21. Hi Bill,

    Similar situation for me, been on incap for around the same time, went for my second medical (the 1st one a few years ago was meant to be a mental health medical, but they did the physical exam instead, and I had to appeal).

    Got turned down, 6 points.. DR either ignored all I said, or disagreed. Computerised like yours was, with doc asking very direct questions directly from the screen. Wanted specific answers, not ‘talk’. Very unprofessional, and far to quick (in and out in 15 mins)

    I used to program computers for a living, till I was bullied into depression at work, I would argue in any court that the software they use is not capable of deciding my mental health state, and the fact they use software like that is a sad joke.

    Appealing, but its been a few weeks now and still waiting for a copy of the medical report…

    Its pathetic, and stressing me out…

    Comment by ken — 19 May 2007 on 8:56 pm | Link

22. this form works about as well as the medical system for incapacity benefit – BADLY.

    Notice the multiple posts?

    The government decides our future, and they reckon software can be used to decide mental health status for incapacity benefit, yet they dont even have webforms that work properly….

    Comment by ken — 19 May 2007 on 9:01 pm | Link

23. My take on this is that life is miserable living next to a self destructing addict, noise nuisance, violence, insults, theft etc. and there’s little police or anyone can do the law is an ass when it comes to noise abatement, you have to live with it for two years and if you are lucky they are evicted. I say give people a two year grace period to rehabillitate and find work, booze and drugs are destroying their bodies and making other peoples life a misery, why should the state fun addiction?,crazyness. My neighbour is up all night watching tv with his noisy layabout friends, sleeps through the day in turn stressing me and I’m not well. There are projects out there to get back to work and overcome any problem there’s just not enough incentive or pressure to force these people out of the vicious cycle of addiction and dependency. I think after the two year grace period and offering these addicts help compulsory monthly blood tests should be a prerequisit of entitlement to benefit and ave nyone with high volumes of alcohol or drugs in their blood should have their benefits reviewed with a view to switching them to jobseekers allowance so they are made to find work and if they don’t then stop benefits altogether, our society is condoning this abuse and misery people are having to suffer. Also the chancellor of the exchechor should hike up the prices of cheap strong lagers in the budget, companies like special brew are profiting off addiction and don’t care about the health of individuals and the knock on effects their vile products like special brew are having, I was attacked by some people in town recently.Those on incapacity through addiction or related mental illnesses that aren’t deemed severe should be targetted to go back to work in my opinion.

    Comment by john — 28 Jun 2007 on 10:51 pm | Link

24. Whilst it is technically correct that those on IB can keep their savings, many claimants also need other benefits alongside, i.e. council tax benefit and housing benefit, in which case their savings are taken into account. The system is totally discrimatory and what they give you with one hand, they take away with the other. Take these two cases for example:

    (1) An IB claimant receives a cheque from the DWP in respect of an underpayment. He banks the money and does not tell the housing benefit department about it because he does not think he needs to. A few weeks later, he receives a letter from the council asking him to attend an Interview under Caution, where he is informed that they believe he has committed benefit fraud. Conclusion: The underpayment he received from one department was given to the other department as an overpayment.

    Case no. 2: A man is awarded damages for a personal injury claim. At the time he received the damages award, he was still in receipt of IB, CTB and HB because of his on-going injuries. His solicitor did not advise him correctly, i.e. the man was told his award for damages would be disregarded for the purposes of CTB and HB, yet this turned out to be false. After some time, the council found out about his ‘savings’ and he was charged with benefit fraud. He now has to pay back the overpayment from his ‘award for damages’. Conclusion: He would have been better off not making a personal injury claim in the first place.

    The social security system in this country is terrible.

    Comment by Tammy — 30 Jun 2007 on 12:22 pm | Link

25. I have read the comment posted by Ken, and although I am a recovering alcoholic who needed state benefits for 2 years whilst going through rehab and battling addiction- I agree with his views on there being a lack of pressure from the state. I woul dbe the last person to condone a softly softly approach to treating addcitions. I am able throug my experiences to categorically state that the addict is not to blame for the condition he/she suffers from, but truly believe that one must be faced with a material and physical rock bottom as soon as possible to aid the mental turnaround required to recover. I appreciaite that many other recovering addicts will diagree with me and I respect that, but I can see why addcition is not a sympathetically received condition by the public at large and I do not blame the public fgor holding this opinion.

    Comment by Jason M — 29 Jan 2008 on 12:09 pm | Link

26. The benefits culture encourages useless, bone-idle wasters to sponge on everybody else.

    I know plenty of them, they dont want work they’re unemployable anyway. They can of course do everything ELSE but work.

    Thats the real problem and governments cant make employers give them a job so they’re stuck with handing them money for nothing.

    We get all kinds of excuses made for them from bleeding-heart lefties who just see it as an indirect way of having a go at the Capitalist establishment.

    They’re too soft with these tossers down to me they’d work or they’d starve.

    Comment by Mick — 6 Nov 2009 on 1:40 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.