www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/uk/

Are people really that stupid? They have to treat others like that and can't see that he has a legitimate reason for not working?
I feel sorry for that family, being treated that way when they have enough to worry about in caring for their dear son.

It'll just be a paperwork error - surely. It'll be a standard letter that shouldn't have been sent out - probably lots of letters were printed off at the push of a button, and nobody's been efficient enough to sort through the list on the computer and weed out recipients whose circumstances make it foolish to send it to.

Like the tossers at a certain company I worked for, who sent debt letters to people after we'd been notified they'd passed away, just because the person who opened the mail was either to stupid, or too lazy to go and amend the computer files.

It's an interesting term though, isn't it? How exactly does one prove that one is 'unable' to work?

Hmmm...

mikey mikey wrote: That whole set-up is a massive fucking scandal.
One guy in a coma was designated as fit-for-work because he hadn't returned his form on time.
Cancer patients on oral chemotherapies were being found to be fit-for-work.
They are processing around 3,000 per day and the rate is around 80% being found capable for work.
They're not of course. The intention was never to find them work, just reduce their benefit entitlement from Incapacity or disabled living allowance down to unemployment benefit.
Why is there no political capital being made by the Labour party from this?
They initiated it.

I take it that question was rhetorical, feather?

It also means that all those now on JSA are in line for mandatory attendance of those 'training' provider (privately owned companies) sessions?

Ab Origine wrote: We can't afford to have both Welfare and Wealthcare apparently so guess which one gets tossed overboard?

Mikey right, we've fucking lost the plot completely.

Disgraceful

Hopefully it was just a paperwork error as Gilly said (still no excuse though).

There is at least one recent similar case where there was certainly no such error however - they meant it.

A person diagnosed with terminal cancer was told that they were considered fit to work for the last few precious months left to them before their illness progressed to the point where they became permanently bedridden, so therefore weren't entitled to claim sickness benefit.

We're not supposed to react like this ^ though.

The media have been priming us all for years, to despise those on benefits, supposedly living off the sweat of our brows - ready for when they pull the plug.

Drag those lazy cancer patient spongers out of bed, and get them stacking shelves at Tesco's.

Gilly wrote:
For FREE on the 'work programme', to boot.

The problem with a lot of these benefit offices and the like is that they are under funded and/or poorly run.

The system is not designed to employ everybody anyway so it seems extra fucked up when they appear to be trying to get people to work who clearly can't.

As Gilly said it is no doubt an error of the classic kind. A very modern day error. Maybe years ago this case would be handled by a human but now it goes away from humans towards computers.

i-baster wrote:
True enough...some humans are still cunts, though.

stephen hawking is rofl

Ab Origine wrote:
Fuck that, odds are they are gonna die anyway, the country needs new cannon fodder!

For King and country!

i-baster wrote:
I've often wondered how many people would be out of work if there were no unemployment, ie. job centre staff, job agency staff, a fair old chunk of benefits staff, etc....

oioioi wrote: Erm zero?

i-baster wrote:
No, no, no...you misunderstand...how many jobs are created by the very fact we have unemployment?

I knew what you were getting at but wanted to be a smart arse.

i-baster wrote:
*fail*

I spelt out my smart arsed comment.

*fail*

Unemployable.

Fingers crossed.