To wonder why a thread about an ex soldier STARVING to death here in the UK

[NickiFury]

gets far less interest and response than any "shall I report my friend for benefit fraud" thread to be found here in AIBU.

People are only interested in the benefits system when they are able to attack those who rely on it, it seems, then they're all over it. No one cares when it utterly fails an individual such as this man.

David Clapson

Please note that a pile of CV's and job applications were found by David's body, he was actually searching for work when he starved to death here in one of the worlds wealthiest nations.

I have often wondered if there should be simply two "streams" of benefits and people should self declare which they want to claim. The first should be for people who don't want to or can't work for ANY reason - sickness, caring responsibilities or simply don't want to and the second for people who are choosing to actively seek employment. The first group would require little administration - no fit for work interviews, no signing days, nothing, just a simple declaration that they are not available for work. The admin costs saved could then be pumped in to actively supporting the second group to find work - providing actual training courses and apprenticeships.

I always get shouted at any time I suggest this because it just sounds like letting people have money for nothing but my thinking on it is that I have never heard of anyone who doesn't want to work actually finding a job and yet they are made to turn up at the jobcentre every week to sign on and go through the show that they are actively seeking work.

they didnt think

,because it's a job,no personal reason to think how he would manage

I don't think you can blame the specific people who applied the sanctions, they're just doing what they're told and probably feel terrible.

I hope they are getting some support.

The blame lies with the people who thought financial sanctions for people already suffering would have no repercussions like this.

Dreadful, shameful news.
If we can find money for wars, we must budget for properly looking after veterans who fight in them.
Though I suppose that doesn't provide such nice photo opportunities at election time.

The trouble with trying to tighten up against fraud is that by definition this makes it more complicated and bureaucratic to access benefits.
I'm concerned about able-bodied adults on longterm benefits, but I'm even more worried about vulnerable people not receiving the help they need to survive.
I would prefer that noone should have benefits stopped without a meeting where they can explain their side and to which they are given transport.

Many of the most vulnerable have trouble already coping with everyday life, e.g. they may have MH, disability, literacy or computer literacy issues, as well as having absolutely no savings to fall back on.

For those who can't cope, access to free hot meals, showers etc could be a lifesaver. Maybe there should be an assessment of those who can manage money and those who need vouchers.

Our highly educated, articulate politicians and senior civil servants live in their own privileged world and don't understand the rest of society, let alone those trapped at the bottom.

This is a very sad story.

We don't know the full facts, but there is no suggestion that guy did anything to help himself, or ask for help from the authorities or his family or charities.

We are told he was claiming JSA. We all know that JSA is not an unqualified benefit: if you don't carry out certain activities (e.g. turn up for appointments) then you will be sanctioned. This guy failed to turn up for an appointment and lost his entitlement to JSA.

There seems to be lots of people here queueing up to blame the government for his death. Please could anyone suggest precisely what you expect the government to have done that they didn't do?

There seems to be lots of people here queueing up to blame the government for his death. Please could anyone suggest precisely what you expect the government to have done that they didn't do?

Well taking not away his only income would have been a good start.

If he was struggling they should have been asking why and putting in measures to support him, not punishing him by cutting off his income to an unsustainable level.

His initial claim would have stated that he had diabetes and other difficulties. You, nor the government can expect those unable to help themselves to do exactly that. There is a great deal of evidence that those with learning disabilities and those with mental health problems are being targeted, presumably because they are less able to defend themselves. Ergo, government are to blame for placing sanctions on those least able to deal with the consequences of said sanctions.

OK.

But this guy was on JSA. That is a benefit for people who are capable of work, actively seeking work, and able to discharge all those responsibilities of work.

The responsibilities of work include turning up when you're expected to turn up. That is why, I would suggest, it is appropriate to sanction JSA claimants who don't turn up for interviews & appointments when they are expected to turn up.

There are, of course, many people who are not capable of work. But they're not entitled to JSA, rather they're entitled to other benefits (fair enough!).

My point is that it is beyond the capability & duty of the government to provide a "minder" for every JSA claimant. Every JSA claimant has a duty to behave responsibly and look after themselves, which is only what they will have to do when then find a job.

In this case I don't think this man comes across on paper anyway as being vulnerable. Barring his diabetes, which wouldn't normally be considered as an illness which would incapacitate someone from managing their own affairs, he seemed to be "low risk". He had previously held a job which he voluntarily left, he had been in a caring role for another person presumably managing their finances etc, he had a number of external options for financial emergency support, he had available family support, there seems to be no obvious history of mental health problems. And yet he clearly was vulnerable. So how as a society do we identify this group of people in order to support them and prevent these tragedies happening?

I don't think it is appropriate to financially sanction people who are already at the poverty line, regardless of any extra needs. People need to eat, they need gas and electric. They need money to pay for these things.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but taking away what little they do have is not it.

Perhaps hard working households would be a better turn of phrase - that encompasses any makeup of householders single or otherwise

We prevent tragedies Brutha by not running a 'safety net' that deliberately leaves its unemployed citizens with zero income for weeks at a time.

And in fact I disagree that he wasn't vulnerable; Anybody scraping along on that miserly level of income is extremely vulnerable to the slightest misfortune.

What this government is purposefully doing is barbaric.

I think that he must have had significant other problems that enhanced his vulnerability
It is hugely sad that no one at all was able to recognise this and help him.
How awful.
His benefits had been stopped previously for not putting enough info on a form. Perhaps difficulties like these should raise a potential distress flag on the system?
Certainly people with anxiety and depressive disorders often have difficulties maintaining their benefits and are often harshly sanctioned,

I utterly disagree with stopping benefits

I think that he must have had significant other problems that enhanced his vulnerability

Maybe just pride. It's been killing poor pensioners for decades. I quite understand why. I'm not sure I could ask a relative for money or food. Not for myself. I would for my children, but I can't honestly conceive of being able to do it as a single adult.

Why should people have to beg from relatives and food banks when they have paid generously into a national insurance scheme for years to be meagrely covered in the event of unemployment?

He was apparently a actively job seeking man in his early 60s.
Not a frail, end of life stage pensioner.

I think if you get to the stage where you have nothing at all and an inability to care for a illness that will kill you if not respected then it is fair to question if there was something else going on for this man.

No matter how great your pride usually self preservation will take you somewhere - even if only to the benefits agency - to keep you alive.
No matter how many appts missed I believe at least subsistence benefits should be paid

I would rather five people who aren't entitled to benefits receive them than one person in genuine need suffers.

And how would I fund it? Close the corporate tax loopholes that allow companies to return obscene profits on the back of fucking slavery workfare and the like.

No matter how many appts missed I believe at least subsistence benefits should be paid

Absolutely.

Although for a diabetic man needing a decent diet, fares to the jobcentre, stamps, paper, some type of internet access for job applications and electricity for insulin refrigeration JSA was subsistence. It is for most people anyway.

In my everyday life I see people who are completely unable to make their way through and around the labyrinth that is the benefits system.
Some can be referred on to advocates etc but many cannot.
They are treated and judged so harshly and often are in no state to act consistently or coherently.
I know we say it is just the application of a system but surely there could be a better way

I'm surprised there hasn't been more protest TBH, by NIC payers, if not by claimants.

Depressing, that's what it is. All of it. :(

Without wanting to seem like a conspiracy theorist I believe that the govt has done a number on us
We are now scroungers or strivers and if we are lucky enough to be strivers we must understand that anyone else is a lesser life form dragging the country down and living off our hard earned taxes

We should sneer and label and report the work-shy layabouts whilst patting ourselves on the back in a self congratulatory manner
All the while the govt removes more and more of the safety net that the welfare system is supposed to provide with our tacit approval whilst we talk about 'teaching them a lesson' or to exhorting them to 'get a job'
We have swallowed such a crock

I don't think that's a conspiracy theory, Ronald - it hasn't even been that hidden that that's what they've been doing! Their "mouthpieces" have been all too ready to comply with the propaganda drivel that's been put out there to drive the wedge between the haves and have nots.

I just wish wish wish that the haves who sneer at the have nots would remember that it could just as easily be them - they're not somehow immune to crippling illnesses or life-changing accidents - and boy will they regret their attitude when it comes home to bite them on the arse.

There are, of course, many people who are not capable of work. But they're not entitled to JSA, rather they're entitled to other benefits (fair enough!).
This chap shouldn't have been on JSA.
Urbane I would suggest you do some reading and take a look at how this government, or rather ATOS decides if people are fit for work or not. When you've managed to work it out would you let the rest of us know please, because there are many, many people on JSA who should not be, but putting them on JSA from ESA reduces the bill.
This still makes it the responsibility of the government, they put him on a benefit that is liable to sanctions, a benefit he should not have been on, it was done to reduce the bill. Ergo government policy killed him