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.

DorsetDays
Agreed - a tick box of criteria diagnosing extreme need would have put this person on the critical list for financial assistance.

I'd always report benefit fraud if I was aware of it, and have no sympathy for abusers of the welfare system as they will make it disappear and stigmatise everybody as a 'work shy scroungers'. But someone in real need needs help, not cutting off from help that keeps them from starving to death.

@Ated what the hell is your problem? Your posts are vile.

however much we might want it, there isn’t some magical unlimited pot of money to fund that.
No, there isn't a magical unlimited pot but there certainly is enough money to make sure vulnerable people don't starve to death and if the large companies and rich individuals paid the tax they ought to the pot would be a lot bigger than it currently is.

Still don’t understand how people think one stranger could have reached out and got this man to engage when even his close family and friends and his GP couldn't achieve that.

Previous posts suggesting that the bar for sectioning someone with MH issues should be lowered (I assume to deal with situations like this) are frankly quite disturbing.

Mygrandchildren. Think the issue that keeps getting missed though is that it requires the DWP to know that someone is vulnerable and needs help. If that person won’t engage with anyone, how on earth are they expected to know that?

If the issue of people not engaging is unsolvable without sanctioning benefits – as some on this thread seem to think – what used to happen? Before our DWP was 'violating it's human rights obligations' (according to a UN poverty expert)? I mean, it must have been an issue before. Even under previous Conservative governments. If fewer people were dying, there's a simple solution.

@Ated do you not possess a shred of empathy?!

(Sorry for the double post , I accidentally hit 'post'.)

Surely refusal to engage, despite repeated attempts, could automatically raise a 'red flag' for the suspicion of mental ill health involvement that needs to be investigated? As I don't see many other reasons that someone would fail to engage with the people who supply their only source of income?

So what I get from that is the people who are unable to engage for whatever reason (age(young or old), disability, mental health, learning difficulties etc) deserve to starve to death.

The thing is people who aren't vulnerable tend not to need so much help...

The idea that people in mental health crisis should be left to starve themselves to death and they only have themselves to blame is pretty extreme.

There's a handful of posters on this thread who seem to genuinely believe this though.

Dorsetdays I think the benefits he was on showed the DWP that he was vulnerable. Giving financial sanctions because people miss appointments through illness or lack of bus fare to attend is unforgivable.
I can't watch I Daniel Blake because I know I'll get too distressed/angry about it, and now we are reading about real people dying through the Government's lack of care and compassion.
It is a disgrace and will only get worse under the current regime.

I bet Ated's been practicing that speech in the mirror. Atos would be a better name for you.

Awwlookatmybabyspider - the victim blaming really is astonishing. The man was mentally ill, and by the sounds of it wouldn't have been declared medically competent to make decisions for himself, but let's blame him for being confused and too ill to engage.

I think Ated is Katie Hopkins venting her spleen after her Twitter ban

Mygrand. But, fortunately, for many people who are on benefits due to ill health its not a permanent situation and therefore their needs change. Hence the requirement for updated medical information.

This man hadn’t seen his GP for three or four years so clearly the DWP wouldn’t have had any updated information on him.

There’s only so many times you can try to reach out to someone. If that person is determined not to engage then you can’t force them (unless we start sectioning everyone in that situation as some people seem to be suggesting).

I’m not suggesting that most people are cheating the system but the reason that’s not the case is because those checks and criteria are in place. Remove that and it’s literally open funding which we can’t afford.

Imagine knocking on a neighbour or family members door as you’ve not heard from them for a while. They don’t answer the phone or reply to your letters. Mail is piling up behind the door, milk on the doorstep and nobody has seen them for a long time.
Do you
A) say bugger that, if they can’t be bothered to answer the door,phone, letter - their fault.
B) inform the police to get the door kicked in to investigate
C) Wait until flies congregate on the window and smell oozes across the neighbourhood

Any welfare system needs compassion - it’s unlikely a lack of response to those providing your only source of food etc is saying ‘go away, all is well’.

There’s only so many times you can try to reach out to someone

Funny how bailiffs always get a response come hell or high water but sources of help don’t.

I doubt if DWP employees are allowed to break into people’s houses. I think there would be uproar if they did.

Awful. And yet England still voted tory in the poorest places. Idiots.

Because the Labour Party failed to offer a credible alternative to vote for. And insisted on keeping an utterly useless and repellent leader.

You could approach his GP for updated information like they often do anyway. People with chronic mental health conditions should always be receiving benefits anyway regardless of if they work or not. That's how they'll either be able to continue to stay as employed as they are or provide savings for a crisis.

There isn't any need for strangers to assess claimants.

GEE. Slight flaw in your plan there though because this man hadn’t seen his GP in the last 3 or 4 years so hardly likely to be able to provide up to date medical information.

@dorsetdays

His GP would know of any diagnoses and how they affect him and could contact him for an appointment if necessary. As someone else wisely said, if someone with severe mental health issues isn't engaging with services then that speaks of their current ability to work.... THEY CAN'T!

I have a patient who is mid 50s. Severe mental health issues including hospitalization is 3 countries. Alcohol dependent. He is NEVER going to be able to work. He has been called for assessment.

Absolutely, but unfortunately he wouldn’t engage with the GP either and the surgery made no attempts to contact him despite not issuing prescriptions for known conditions for a period of 3-4 years.

Just because someone is diagnosed and/or classified as unfit to work 5 years ago doesn’t necessarily mean that is still the situation now, DWP followed their procedures to request updated medical information, if they don’t get that despite various contact attempts, the suggestion is that they should just continue paying benefits regardless?

Not sure where the incentive is then for anyone to engage with DWP if it means, despite their situation/health possibly improving, that they will continue to receive benefits if they just ignore any contact. In fact, they have a vested interest in ensuring they totally disengage.

This man had a family. He had an (ex) partner who he apparently remained close to yet none of them noticed that a grown man weighed less than a child.

Yet it’s still all the DWP’s fault 🤔