To think there will be more cases like this one? Errol Graham, starved to death.

[BillHadersNewWife]

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-51283186

Mr. Graham had his benefits stopped and despite having genuine problems was left alone to starve.

www.disabilitynewsservice.com/the-death-of-errol-graham-man-starved-to-death-after-dwp-wrongly-stopped-his-benefits/?fbclid=IwAR2eRG_-He70F0dQ9tlHzysRvoLijGdROWhM94pn58cmDPclIxTJgVwEwwg

It's absolutely sickening and worrying.

If an adult has mental health difficulties and refuses to engage with services what exactly would all the people hand-wringing on this thread do. The bar for sectioning is very very high and rightly so. I am so sick of public services being blamed for everything. I work with some of these difficult to reach members of the community and you can't compel adults to engage even if not doing so is to their own detriment. The fact that this man's own family who appear to care could not have any influence is an indicator that he was quite determind not to engage. Unless people are proposing we lock the mentally ill up in asylums and force treatment on them I am at a loss as to how they expect those of us doing the work with these individual to force them to engage. I am all ears! Or is the idea that if someone is mentally unwell then there should be no checks and balances on what benefits they are entitled to?

So that's punishable by starvation, Dorset.
Even convicted criminals eat.!

From what I've read, the only reason the coroner didn't issue a regulation 28 report was because the DWP assured them they are in the process of reviewing their safeguarding procedures?

'The only option is simply not to impose any benefit sanctions on anyone ever just in case they have medical or MH issues regardless of whether there’s any information to support that.

In an ideal world maybe that’s a solution but unfortunately the benefits pot isn’t limitless so there has to be some criteria for accessing those funds.'

Acceptable collateral damage.
Better some die, than some work the system.

Money > human lives.

My close friend is in the end stages of Huntingdons, she needs 24 hour care, and yet, apparently, she is fit for work!

The idea that doing something different = having no criteria for benefits is disingenuous.

There were not so many deaths or suicides under the previous system.

Some get worked up about people abusing the welfare system and see a few deaths as a small price to pay.

One woman who committed suicide due to benefits had young kids I seem to remember. Still, she's not on benefits any more is she so result.

Lemonsandlimes ^this

Actually I think the bar for sectioning is too high, and I think the fact that mental health services are extremely stretched in some areas has a lot to do with it. They simply do not have the resources. If someone is not thinking rationally, they are not capable of making a rational choice to engage or not.

Yes there should be checks made - but this doesn't mean stopping benefits. I'm not getting the leap between isn't engaging equals no longer meeting criteria. Self neglect as part of safeguarding procedure needs reviewing and urgently.

'! Or is the idea that if someone is mentally unwell then there should be no checks and balances on what benefits they are entitled to?'

Exactly as I said.

Saving a few quid > saving a few lives.

Basic right wing philosophy. People should look after themselves. If they can't or don't they get what they deserve.

This seems to apply less to children and the elderly for some reason in their heads. Maybe because they are seen as 'worthy', more worthy than this man.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-47332954

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/universal-credit-benefit-mum-suicide-14544736

Two more excellent stories of savings for the welfare system.

Bring it on I say. Savings for the taxpayer for the win.

Internet has a brilliant long list of stories like this to select from. I just picked the first two.

If someone has mental health difficulties such that they are unable to engage with the benefits system,they are obviously not able to work.So,equally obviously,continue to be entitled to benefits.

Not complicated.

I find the concept of major sanctions abhorrent in the first place. The value of benefits is so low, how does the DWP think people would eat and feed their children if they have been sanctioned? Lots of people will be vulnerable and just wont have the ability to deal with the system. People will mental health issues in crisis especially so. My mum is fortunate because she gets DLA for her mental illness but because she’s elderly she doesn’t have to keep applying for it it go through any of the faff. She wouldn’t have been able to manage that when she was younger. My life could have been very different if my dad hadn’t stayed with her.

Those who voted Tory/Conservative were behaving/acting as Karl Marx predicted - ie as a class against themselves - can’t wait for the rest of his assertions to materialise

Heartbreaking and one of thousands of cases I'm sure. So many people are living at subsistence level, it's like living in a fucking Dickens novel round here but for those who don't see it, it's out of sight out of mind.

This shouldn't be happening. There are so many others who have been failed by the system.

www.facebook.com/groups/danielblakememorialgroup/

and the elderly for some reason in their heads.

Unless they have a younger partner from 15 May last year. Its UC for age gap couples where one is over state pension age and one under. It means they are open to sanction which will obvs affect the older partner as the UC will be for the whole household. Younger partner will have to look for and take work. If they are a carer for the older partner but has to go out to work or face a sanction which will affect the older partner too it wont be long before we are revisiting this conversation.

Except it will be "where was his wife. Why was she at bloody work. If he was at risk of collapse/ breathing difficulties/ why wasnt she at home looking after him.

"society" cant keep voting for things like this and then blaming the families/family carers.

You cant have it both ways.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_money_matters/3479693-Changes-to-Pension-Credit

If an adult has mental health difficulties and refuses to engage with services what exactly would all the people hand-wringing on this thread do

I'd not cut off their only means of buying food, paying their heating or paying their rent and then sit back and wait to arrange their paupers funeral.

Truly shocking and so sad and 100% down to the Government.
Shame on everyone who voted for the Conservative Party.

@Ated what a truly vile post. What is wrong with you? Re. the poor man that died, they could have not cut off his only means of subsistence, his benefits, in the first fucking place.

Max. Not agreeing with Ateds post above but there has to be some measure, some criteria that sits hand in hand with benefits otherwise it’s just a free for all and, however much we might want it, there isn’t some magical unlimited pot of money to fund that.

Ated Your post there RIGHT THERE is why so many people are reluctant to care for family members now. Not only do they risk poverty they get seen as worthless or scroungers.

Thankyou for proving me right. Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.