Stitching-up claimants is all part of the job, says Jobcentre insider

First topic message reminder :

Last week Iain Duncan Smith met a whistle-blower who has worked for his Department for Work and Pensions for more than 20 years.

Giving the Secretary of State a dossier of evidence, the former Jobcentre Plus adviser told him of a “brutal and bullying” culture of “setting claimants up to fail”.

“The pressure to sanction customers was constant,” he said. “It led to people being stitched-up on a daily basis.”

The man wishes to be anonymous but gave his details to IDS, DWP minister Esther McVey and Neil Couling, Head of Jobcentre Plus, who also attended the meeting.

“We were constantly told ‘agitate the customer’ and that ‘any engagement with the customer is an opportunity to ­sanction’,” he told them.

Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, the member of the DWP Select Committee who set up the meeting, has renewed her call for an inquiry into inappropriate sanctioning.

“I am deeply concerned that sanctions are being used to create the illusion the Government is bringing down unemployment,” she said.

Sanctions pre-date the Coalition as a way of ensuring benefit claimants, who include the jobless and sick and disabled people on Employment Support Allowance, attend appointments and apply for jobs. But under the Tory-led Government, they have soared – to 897,690 a year from the most recent data.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/stitching-up-claimants-part-job-says-3537051


from May last year...but no better if not worse Now....


and you wonder why I consider those who work for this shameful organisation to be entirely without honour...

In fact come the revolution i would put them against the brick wall first...

IDS and his troupe of performing monkeys are merely self seeking low lifes

these people are traitors to their own.......

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I agree 100%. I know plenty of people with disabilities that work also.
Being dependent on benefits denies people purpose in their lives to be independent to earn their own money.
There is not many reasons why people cannot work

I am sure there is situations where benefit centres have some that do treat those unemployed poorly, but one worker in one centre is hardly viable to claim there is some mass agenda against the unemplyed.

Crikey - I expected a lecture from you about my "poor" views.

Have a few friends that are the heads of HR plus from seeing first hand recruitment days with the Job centre what sort of percentage of people are there to find employment and those just there to tick a box for showing up.
I would say around 30% genuine looking for work. Of course that is from what I have seen myself and others I know in HR that work for middle Size copmpanies of 300 to 500 employees.
I think it is going to take at least another generation to get past the legacy of labour where people believed it paid to stay on benefits than work.

Isn't this why they're tightening things up? There were people claiming JSA when they could get a job. There were people claiming incapacity-type benefits when they able to work because their condition improved. There were people working part time simply because if they went above a certain number of hours they would lose their benefits or whatever?

It seems to me that it's easy to claim ESA - you do it over the phone or just fill in a form don't you? Maybe it gets more difficult later on when they check up on you?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:


They can ask to change an appointment and they will probably be allowed to change it but they will be sanctioned for not complying with the original instruction to attend.

I'm not sure I believe that tbh.

So why would part time workers be asked to attend?

To ascertain why they are not full time and to get them into full time.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, if it's all so difficult, this is why people should not rely on benefits unless it's absolutely necessary. Of course that should go without saying - benefits are those who simply can't work, not for those who choose not to. If a part-time worker could do more hours, or find another job with more hours, why should they get benefits?

What about those in work but the wages are not enough to live on?

Very true rags... and yes it does get tougher because you Are booked into a work ability assessment after a few months and they decide whether you Are capable of doing something or not.


The whole thing is a test, just the fact that you have arrived show you have capability to travel and navigate the transport network etc.


They normally find people fit to work and then you have to appeal and get your doctor to fight your corner for you for any chance of winning appeal.


I know someone else who got run over about 20 years ago, head injuries, metal plate in his neck, trouble with walking and balance, other problems as a direct cause, depression etc... was found fit to work last year by the atos assessment people, he appealed and won.

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, if it's all so difficult, this is why people should not rely on benefits unless it's absolutely necessary. Of course that should go without saying - benefits are those who simply can't work, not for those who choose not to. If a part-time worker could do more hours, or find another job with more hours, why should they get benefits?

What about those in work but the wages are not enough to live on?

How do you explain those that can afford to live on them?
People easily excuse how some people are poor with their money.
Of course this will not be the case for everyone, but to say they cannot afford to live, I will question the validity of such a claim.

How much is enough to live on?


It's all relative to how much you want to spend every week.

Tommy Monk wrote:How much is enough to live on?


It's all relative to how much you want to spend every week.

Want to spend?
Or should it be how much is a necessity to spend?
How much is not a need or requirment to spend?
Without millions in debt and now a time more than ever with people living beyond their means, people clearly need to have debt and finnancial advice. Its first and foremost important that people are able to balance their books before their debt spirals out of control.


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2869771/British-households-living-means-time-20-years-OBR-warns.html

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Crikey - I expected a lecture from you about my "poor" views.

Have a few friends that are the heads of HR plus from seeing first hand recruitment days with the Job centre what sort of percentage of people are there to find employment and those just there to tick a box for showing up.
I would say around 30% genuine looking for work. Of course that is from what I have seen myself and others I know in HR that work for middle Size copmpanies of 300 to 500 employees.
I think it is going to take at least another generation to get past the legacy of labour where people believed it paid to stay on benefits than work.

What a vile situation. How on this earth did these lying rats get such power? Oh yes, the vote is a farce. I
forgot that for a moment.

"30% genuine looking for work." I would disagree with that, there has be a lot more that want to work, judging from what I am hearing. People are are just boxed in and so downhearted because they can't play a part, it is soul totally destroying ever fibre of their existence...

As for the disabled. How many call centres do we have in UK, some centres even working from abroad? Why not let those who can sit in their bed do something if they can, on a phone, even if it were only an hour here and there, it would give that person such a kick to know they are in contact with the rest of the world and actually contributing in some way, how ever small that is.

captainJane wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Have a few friends that are the heads of HR plus from seeing first hand recruitment days with the Job centre what sort of percentage of people are there to find employment and those just there to tick a box for showing up.
I would say around 30% genuine looking for work. Of course that is from what I have seen myself and others I know in HR that work for middle Size copmpanies of 300 to 500 employees.
I think it is going to take at least another generation to get past the legacy of labour where people believed it paid to stay on benefits than work.

What a vile situation. How on this earth did these lying rats get such power? Oh yes, the vote is a farce. I
forgot that for a moment.

"30% genuine looking for work." I would disagree with that, there must be a lot more than that. People are so downhearted because they can't play a part, it is soul totally destroying ever fibre of their existence...

As for the disabled. How many call centres do we have in UK, some centres even working from abroad? Why not let those who can sit in their bed do something if they can, on a phone, even if it were only an hour here and there, it would give that person such a kick to know they are in contact with the rest of the world and actually contributing in some way, how ever small that is.  

I am going by what I see myself and from those I know who work within HR of those coming from the Job centres.
Many have little interest for these recruitment days and turn up to just show that they have to continue payments.
With some they take on the work and show a very poor work ethic, turning up late or going sick and within a couple of months have been sacked and they are back to claiming benefits.
Again over the time Labour was in power a poor work ethic grew in this country where it certainly was more beneficial to claim than to work. Part of this problem was the low wages, but one of the reasons the economy has recovered is that it has brought business to the UK as the wages here are far cheaper than within many EU countries. It is a catch 22 situation and a remedy is not going to be easy to find here, but there certainly has grown over the years where now people see work more as a chore than something to take pride in.
I think the easy access to credit has also created a massive problem in this country where people are constantly living on credit. At some point this is going to burst unless people start making some radical changes which will mean some sacrifices.
Of course not all people can afford but it is utterly poor to ignore how many people have created the problems for themselves with debt, when they live beyond their means.
I am all for more disabled people to be able to work from home and believe more companies should make this a process of going forward.

Cuchulain wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:How much is enough to live on?


It's all relative to how much you want to spend every week.

Want to spend?
Or should it be how much is a necessity to spend?
How much is not a need or requirment to spend?
Without millions in debt and now a time more than ever with people living beyond their means, people clearly need to have debt and finnancial advice. Its first and foremost important that people are able to balance their books before their debt spirals out of control.


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2869771/British-households-living-means-time-20-years-OBR-warns.html

Didge, that was part of my point... some want to have a luxury life style with loads of expensive perks but then complain that they don't have enough money to live on.


I remember on another recent thread, handy Andy I think it was, was claiminp that a reduction in benefits would mean people would suffer by not being able to eat out at restaurants or buy expensive designer goods any more!!!


Surely these privileges should only be for those working and earning good money anyway!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Want to spend?
Or should it be how much is a necessity to spend?
How much is not a need or requirment to spend?
Without millions in debt and now a time more than ever with people living beyond their means, people clearly need to have debt and finnancial advice. Its first and foremost important that people are able to balance their books before their debt spirals out of control.


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2869771/British-households-living-means-time-20-years-OBR-warns.html

Didge, that was part of my point... some want to have a luxury life style with loads of expensive perks but then complain that they don't have enough money to live on.


I remember on another recent thread, handy Andy I think it was, was claiminp that a reduction in benefits would mean people would suffer by not being able to eat out at restaurants or buy expensive designer goods any more!!!


Surely these privileges should only be for those working and earning good money anyway!!!???

I am sure everyone would like to eat out and enjoy such an evening but again people tend not to think of the consequences until after they decide to have an evening out. When they should think of the consequences before doing going out. I also think some people are very poor at food shopping and are not economical in what they buy.
If you want to enjoy an evening out then as when growing up in a family that had little money, you save up to do so.
It also makes the event that much more special and something you actually really look forward to.
I think society has gotten to that point where it expects everything and in some cased demands it should have what it cannot afford to have.
I think people would much rather look forward to a night out if they saved to do so. You then are going out and not adding stress and anxiety to your evening being able to enjoy your night out.

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, if it's all so difficult, this is why people should not rely on benefits unless it's absolutely necessary. Of course that should go without saying - benefits are those who simply can't work, not for those who choose not to. If a part-time worker could do more hours, or find another job with more hours, why should they get benefits?

What about those in work but the wages are not enough to live on?

In full time work? Good question. I would say it's housing costs which are the main problem, and something should be done about that - not sure what though.

If people really can't live on what they earn in full time work, they get working tax credits, yes? The idea now is to raise the minimum wage so they shouldn't need tax credits. Whether that will work or not, I don't know. I hope it does - there should be no need for that kind of top up benefit.

In any case, those people are at least making the maximum effort, so I have some sympathy for them.

Tommy Monk wrote:How much is enough to live on?


It's all relative to how much you want to spend every week.

That's very true Tommy, and a lot of people seem to think that some things are necessities when they are actually luxuries. As I said, housing costs are the main problem IMO.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you're money isn't 'enough to live on', maybe you Are trying to spend too much unnecessarily, should economise, downsize, expect less, or work more or get a better paying job.



If you have strapped yourself up with loads of debts/loans/credit card bills to pay etc, then that is your own fault... don't expect to be able to pay all those and then moan that you don't have enough money to live on.

Tommy Monk wrote:Very true rags... and yes it does get tougher because you Are booked into a work ability assessment after a few months and they decide whether you Are capable of doing something or not.


The whole thing is a test, just the fact that you have arrived show you have capability to travel and navigate the transport network etc.


They normally find people fit to work and then you have to appeal and get your doctor to fight your corner for you for any chance of winning appeal.


I know someone else who got run over about 20 years ago, head injuries, metal plate in his neck, trouble with walking and balance, other problems as a direct cause, depression etc... was found fit to work last year by the atos assessment people, he appealed and won.

Re your second point, that was going on many years ago - to see if you can get around or walk very far or not. I know someone who was turned down because she could walk further than she thought.

captainJane wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Have a few friends that are the heads of HR plus from seeing first hand recruitment days with the Job centre what sort of percentage of people are there to find employment and those just there to tick a box for showing up.
I would say around 30% genuine looking for work. Of course that is from what I have seen myself and others I know in HR that work for middle Size copmpanies of 300 to 500 employees.
I think it is going to take at least another generation to get past the legacy of labour where people believed it paid to stay on benefits than work.

What a vile situation. How on this earth did these lying rats get such power? Oh yes, the vote is a farce. I
forgot that for a moment.

"30% genuine looking for work." I would disagree with that, there has be a lot more that want to work, judging from what I am hearing. People are are just boxed in and so downhearted because they can't play a part, it is soul totally destroying ever fibre of their existence...

As for the disabled. How many call centres do we have in UK, some centres even working from abroad? Why not let those who can sit in their bed do something if they can, on a phone, even if it were only an hour here and there, it would give that person such a kick to know they are in contact with the rest of the world and actually contributing in some way, how ever small that is.

Some good points there Jane. I think half the problem is a lack of confidence, which can happen very quickly when someone claims benefits. They get downhearted, and then they lose the incentive to find work altogether. There are of course others who have no intention of working though.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Want to spend?
Or should it be how much is a necessity to spend?
How much is not a need or requirment to spend?
Without millions in debt and now a time more than ever with people living beyond their means, people clearly need to have debt and finnancial advice. Its first and foremost important that people are able to balance their books before their debt spirals out of control.


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2869771/British-households-living-means-time-20-years-OBR-warns.html

Didge, that was part of my point... some want to have a luxury life style with loads of expensive perks but then complain that they don't have enough money to live on.


I remember on another recent thread, handy Andy I think it was, was claiminp that a reduction in benefits would mean people would suffer by not being able to eat out at restaurants or buy expensive designer goods any more!!!


Surely these privileges should only be for those working and earning good money anyway!!!???

Did Andy really say that?

The point of benefits is to use them to buy essentials, not go for meals out and buy things one doesn't need.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:


What about those in work but the wages are not enough to live on?

In full time work? Good question. I would say it's housing costs which are the main problem, and something should be done about that - not sure what though.

If people really can't live on what they earn in full time work, they get working tax credits, yes? The idea now is to raise the minimum wage so they shouldn't need tax credits. Whether that will work or not, I don't know. I hope it does - there should be no need for that kind of top up benefit.

In any case, those people are at least making the maximum effort, so I have some sympathy for them.

Yes, housing costs have risen massively and hugely disproportionately to other wage increases etc, and that is because of mass immigration primarily but also because the banks allowed too many people sign up on the dotted line on buy to let mortgages which further increased demand and reduced supply.


It's completely unsustainable, wages becoming increasingly tight as a result, and housing benefit bill to govt has sky rocketed as a result too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



Didge, that was part of my point... some want to have a luxury life style with loads of expensive perks but then complain that they don't have enough money to live on.


I remember on another recent thread, handy Andy I think it was, was claiminp that a reduction in benefits would mean people would suffer by not being able to eat out at restaurants or buy expensive designer goods any more!!!


Surely these privileges should only be for those working and earning good money anyway!!!???

Did Andy really say that?

The point of benefits is to use them to buy essentials, not go for meals out and buy things one doesn't need.

Here it is...

In this thread...
George Osborne's brutal spending cuts could plunge Britain into recession, warn City experts


Handy Andy said...
And the economy won't prosper if 13 million people no longer have any spare cash to buy luxury items, or have meals out.

Tommy Monk wrote:How much is enough to live on?


It's all relative to how much you want to spend every week.

It's not really though is it? Wages and benefits are not going up. I'm not getting a pay rise this year.
Bills and prices are going up though. It's not what you want to spend its what you have to spend. Some have to live so hand to mouth that one extra expense can tip them over the edge.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Did Andy really say that?

The point of benefits is to use them to buy essentials, not go for meals out and buy things one doesn't need.

Here it is...

In this thread...
George Osborne's brutal spending cuts could plunge Britain into recession, warn City experts


Handy Andy said...
And the economy won't prosper if 13 million people no longer have any spare cash to buy luxury items, or have meals out.

I see.

Nems, I've been at both ends of it all, some weeks being on £1000+ and other weeks having to scratch on and only getting a giro.


Benefits are there to ensure you don't starve and You have basic electricity and heating etc, not so you can afford luxury life style, nights out on the town, expensive clothes and other expensive goods.

Yep, but they are not doing that, and neither are low wages. Don't tell me, you'll try to shrug off the use of food banks as they spend the money on something else. But that is you Tommy, never admit the truth, always denigrate those in need and make out it's there own fault and lick the boots of the people doing it to them. I loathe people who kowtow to authroity and thank them for killing off the poor and sick. In my book, that's the lowest thing you can do.

A giro at the moment is somewhere around £145 a fortnight, if established on ESA and disability allowance etc then that is even more.


That money is food plus electricity and gas, plus basic toiletries etc.


Plenty of money for just those basic essentials.

Is there any proof that cutting benefits is actually killing anyone? If they have a medical condition, maybe they would have died anyway?

Yea right, if you are sick you are probably attending hospital appointments and have to get to and fro to them, what about if you shoes get holes in them, or your fridge stops working and you are diabetic or get bugs easily because of a compromised immune system. One thing most sick people need is a really good diet and extra heat during the cold, in fact I needed heat the first weeks in June.

You don't have a clue Tommy, and stop trying to pretend you do, it's pathetic and makes you lood spiteful against people worse off than yourself.

Raggamuffin wrote:Is there any proof that cutting benefits is actually killing anyone? If they have a medical condition, maybe they would have died anyway?

Yes there is, and I've posted some of it to you before. The DWP has now got that information but Iain Duncan Smith is refusing to let it be published, even though he has been told to do so. Kinda says everything.

I had a heater on not long back as well. British weather eh?

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is there any proof that cutting benefits is actually killing anyone? If they have a medical condition, maybe they would have died anyway?

Yes there is, and I've posted some of it to you before.  The DWP has now got that information but Iain Duncan Smith is refusing to let it be published, even though he has been told to do so.  Kinda says everything.

It seems a bit circumstantial to me Sassy.

I think some of the problem might be that it's easy to get ESA at first, and then it seems to taken away from some people, until the appeal is heard. Maybe there should be a proper assessment at the time of applying?

I would also like to know if people claiming ESA are asked what medication they're taking. There are conditions out there which can be controlled quite well for many people as long as they take their medication, or if they try new ones. There's no point in all this drug development if none of them work, so I would say that they do work for many people - but are they actually trying them?

Don't talk shit sassy... are you trying to say that everyone needs a whole load more money just because of a few exceptional circumstances for a few?



Don't be ridiculous!!!



You Are starting to make your self look silly now!!!

You have no idea about how costly it is to be permantently sick and/or disabled do you? And lets face it, you don't even care.

People can get DLA on top of ESA can't they? They can also have an income up to a certain point and still claim ESA. Assuming they have no other income though, how much would it all come to per week?

what about the REAL point

as progressive as letting the top earners avoid paying their fair share

which would render the argument about benefits entirely moot.

since we would have enough for the benefits bill, pay off the national debt AND a bit left over for a party

victorismyhero wrote:what about the REAL point

as progressive as letting the top earners avoid paying their fair share

which would render the argument about benefits entirely moot.

since we would have enough for the benefits bill, pay off the national debt AND a bit left over for a party

It's not just about money though is it? Even if the country could afford to pay loads out in benefits, it still wouldn't be right for those on benefits to get more than those who work. It's also about providing an incentive to work, and nobody is going to work if they can have what they want on benefits.

People still don't need a new fridge every week though sassy, and if needing to get to hospital, is that every day too?


Maybe a weekly bus pass would do... a lift from a friend or relative or if you Are in that much trouble then I'm sure either transport would be provided OR YOU WOULD BE IN THE HOSPITAL ALL THE TIME!

New claims

You can only make a new claim for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) if you’re claiming for a child under 16 - this is known as DLA for children.

You may be able to make a new claim if you’re over 65.

Anyone over 16 must apply for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) instead of DLA.
Existing claims

PIP is gradually replacing DLA for people aged 16 to 64, even for those with an indefinite or lifetime DLA award.

You can continue to get DLA if you were born on or before 8 April 1948 and you’re eligible. If you were born after that, use the PIP checker to find out if and when you’re affected by PIP.

https://www.gov.uk/dla-disability-living-allowance-benefit/overview

Almost two out of three people who apply for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) get nothing at all unless they are terminally ill, DWP figures released today reveal. The statistics also expose the massive backlog created by the combined failures of Atos, Capita and the DWP, with fewer than one in six claims having so far been decided.

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/2624-almost-two-out-of-three-pip-claims-refused

PIP is in utter chaos because of mishandling by IDS.

Why replace one benefit with another which is basically the same? There are too many different kinds as it is!

Tommy Monk wrote:People still don't need a new fridge every week though sassy, and if needing to get to hospital, is that every day too?


Maybe a weekly bus pass would do... a lift from a friend or relative or if you Are in that much trouble then I'm sure either transport would be provided OR YOU WOULD BE IN THE HOSPITAL ALL THE TIME!

Really?  Shows how much you know.  My daughter had a protein C and protein S deficiency, amongst other things, and had to do to the hospital every single day.  It makes you blood go very thick or very thin all the time and she had to have wafarin checks every day to make sure she didn't either bleed to death or get another DVT (she had over 20 in her short life).  Clueless.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why replace one benefit with another which is basically the same? There are too many different kinds as it is!

IDS's bright idea and he mismanaged it and they have had to write off millions, literally. He has cost the DWP a fortune.

sassy wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:People still don't need a new fridge every week though sassy, and if needing to get to hospital, is that every day too?


Maybe a weekly bus pass would do... a lift from a friend or relative or if you Are in that much trouble then I'm sure either transport would be provided OR YOU WOULD BE IN THE HOSPITAL ALL THE TIME!

Really?  Shows how much you know.  My daughter had a protein C and protein S deficience, amongst other things, and had to do to the hospital every single day.  It makes you blood go very thick or very thin all the time and she had to have wafarin checks every day to make sure she didn't either bleed to death or get another DVT (she had over 20 in her short life).  Clueless.

You can get transport in some areas though, or claim back the expense of travelling to hospital if you can't meet the costs and you have to go a lot.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

Really?  Shows how much you know.  My daughter had a protein C and protein S deficience, amongst other things, and had to do to the hospital every single day.  It makes you blood go very thick or very thin all the time and she had to have wafarin checks every day to make sure she didn't either bleed to death or get another DVT (she had over 20 in her short life).  Clueless.

You can get transport in some areas though, or claim back the expense of travelling to hospital if you can't meet the costs and you have to go a lot.

They don't do that anymore.   You used to fill in a form at the hospital.  It was stopped a long time ago and the DWP don't have any such scheme.

They say it still applies, but in practice it hasn't done for ages.

And what benefit was she chaining sassy?

She was on a sickness benefit.

You do talk some shit sassy!!!


You won't say because you know it will make your claim of hardship by going to hospital every day look like a load of bollocks!!!



Wouldn't be surprised if she was working in well paid job and had a car to whip around in too!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:You do talk some shit sassy!!!


You won't say because you know it will make your claim of hardship by going to hospital every day look like a load of bollocks!!!



Wouldn't be surprised if she was working in well paid job and had a car to whip around in too!!!

Of course she was Tommy, that's why she died.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can get transport in some areas though, or claim back the expense of travelling to hospital if you can't meet the costs and you have to go a lot.

They don't do that anymore.   You used to fill in a form at the hospital.  It was stopped a long time ago and the DWP don't have any such scheme.

They say it still applies, but in practice it hasn't done for ages.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1079.aspx?CategoryID=68&SubCategoryID=154

Apparently, it all depends on what benefits you're getting or whatever - so complicated yet again. I think it should depend on how often you have to go and how far it is to the hospital really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

They don't do that anymore.   You used to fill in a form at the hospital.  It was stopped a long time ago and the DWP don't have any such scheme.

They say it still applies, but in practice it hasn't done for ages.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1079.aspx?CategoryID=68&SubCategoryID=154

Apparently, it all depends on what benefits you're getting or whatever - so complicated yet again. I think it should depend on how often you have to go and how far it is to the hospital really.

I completely agree, one of the reasons the hospital avoid it is because it is so complicated.

I notice tommy has nothing to say about this

what about the REAL point

as progressive as letting the top earners avoid paying their fair share

which would render the argument about benefits entirely moot.

since we would have enough for the benefits bill, pay off the national debt AND a bit left over for a party


I assume he approves of these parasites robbing the rest of us (and especially the poor of this country ) blind....