Desperate DWP’s last minute appeal against revealing benefit-related deaths

[blacksunday]

The Department for Work and Pensions has appealed against the ruling compelling it to disclose the number of Incapacity Benefit and ESA claimants who have died between November 2011 and May 2014.

The ruling came from the Information Commissioner on April 30 after an appeal by Vox Political‘s Mike Sivier. The DWP had 28 calendar days in which to submit an appeal – and it arrived via email at 3.25pm today – just one hour and 35 minutes before the close of business for the day.

Clearly the cowards of Caxton House are terrified of revealing the true numbers of those who have died as a result of Conservative policies towards the sick and disabled, and have delayed their appeal until almost the last minute in order to delay, for as long as possible, the moment when they have to provide the facts.

The appeal itself appears to be nothing more than a rehash of the DWP’s original reasons for refusing This Writer’s request – reasons that were dismissed by the Information Commissioner after Vox Political pointed out that they were not valid.

Therefore the DWP is simply wasting time.

Desperation radiates from the DWP’s appeal. Here’s just one example: “Taken in isolation, the statistics requested by Mr Sivier were likely to be misinterpreted. Specifically, incorrect conclusions were likely to be drawn as to causal links between assessment outcomes and mortality. Such misinterpretations would be contrary to the public interest, particularly given the emotive and sensitive context of mortality statistics.”

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not allow any public authority discretion to refuse a request because it fears what a person may or may not do with the information.

If it holds the information, it must communicate it to the person making the request.

It seems reasonable to conclude that the number of deaths – when it is finally revealed – will be devastatingly large.

The behaviour of this government department would be laughable if the subject matter was not so serious – the deaths of many thousands of sick and disabled people, due to the way this department treated them.

But it was only to be expected. This process has taken an extremely long time – nearly two years – because of the DWP’s constant evasions. A little longer won’t make much of a difference, especially as the Tories have managed to con the electorate into letting them play at being the government for another five years.

And the game of cat-and-mouse has nearly run its course. Very soon now, the DWP will have nowhere to hide.

Tick tock, Tory boys.

voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/05/28/desperate-dwps-last-minute-appeal-against-revealing-benefit-related-deaths/

trillions of pounds generated in tax by normal hard working people gets given in subsidy to fossil fuel companies

The UK government's total spend is around 500 billion pounds per year. Fossil fuel subsidies are around 6.3 billion pounds per year. This takes the form of the reduced rate of VAT on gas and electricity, so money left in consumer's pockets, not money paid to fossil fuel companies.

our culture of punishing the poor to benefit the wealthy

The top 1% of earners receive 12% of total income in the UK and pay nearly 30% of all income tax receipts. That is nearly 3 times as much as the bottom 50% of earners put together despite the fact that they receive 24% of total income.

Yes i get it. The highest earners pay the most tax therefore it's ok for people to starve when they can't find work.

Fossil fuel companies are falling over themselves to give free money to the people.

therefore it's ok for people to starve when they can't find work

I did not say that and I do not think that. I find your suggestion that this is my view offensive.

prh47bridge

The top 1% of earners receive 12% of total income in the UK and pay nearly 30% of all income tax receipts. That is nearly 3 times as much as the bottom 50% of earners put together despite the fact that they receive 24% of total income.

Christ, not this again. People who say this don't realise the point they're making.

----

Imagine this scenario:

There is a society which is so unjust and unequal, that 1% of the population owns 99% of the wealth. The remaining 1% of the wealth is distributed amongst 99% of society.

Obviously, in a modern technological and industrial society, we need roads, electricity lines, houses, airports, fire, police, ambulance services, etc.

All of this infrastructure and services need to be paid.

-----

The only way it can feasibly be paid for is by the richest 1% contributing 90% of the tax revenue. This is the case by virtue of the fact that the poor have no money to contribute.

So it is not at all surprising the the richest pay the largest share of tax revenue. It's absolutely right that that is the case. They own the largest share of wealth (and in most cases, income).

Instead of complaining about this, if you want 'ordinary' (non-rich) people to pay a larger proportion of the total tax share, then you should be arguing for a more equal society, where the majority a paid a fairer share for their work.

pastmyduedate028 ... re your ""if you're poor, it's your own fault and you should just die" right, isitme ?"

Don't be a plonker, let me play that card, are you saying that every UK poor person did not waste the free education chances as a social right that those REALLY starving in the likes of Africa didn't have, or that the UK 'safety net' is one of the worse welfare/benefit system in the world?

No doubt you have a solution, if not all running around and cycling in little green suits, or wrapped up in shite housing drinking vodka, what is it????

blacksunday .... back pre 1979 Thatcher, the basic rate of income tax was 32%, the higher rate over 60% upwards, the tax on unearned income e.g. investments, was over 90% and Corporation Tax was over 50% - how was that working out as incentive to work, or invest in anything e.g. job creation?

How did the 75% tax rate recently work out in France, if not LESS taxes raised?

You are talking armchair communism bollocks; "equal society" means those who piss around up the school bike sheds instead of learning, should earn the same as those who made an effort to get a decent degree?

The private sector sets salary levels for themselves that pays taxes, we have no control over that and should never try in a global market place - what YOU (and similar) should worry about is the size/cost of the public sector e.g. why government Quangocrats get £150k upwards, yet nurses get sod all.

Sort out the disparity within the public sector (made worse under a socialist government of 13-years), then you and other have a right to look at the private sector, owned by citizens risking their own money, putting their trust in the Boards/Directors of those companies.

Of course vulnerable people must be supported and the DWP is harsh on occasions. I know people who have had unfair decisions under a Labour gtovernment. Benefits need to be reformed. And let's face it the Tories won the election. That's a lot of heartless or misled voters. People died on hospital trolleys through lack of care under the Labour government. All this poverty and starvation in the UK scaremongering is a total insult to many who live in countries without a welfare state and are truly starving and in dire poverty.

"And let's face it the Tories won the election. That's a lot of heartless or misled voters."

While in Greece, they opted for a softer left wing government that told the electorate, nay insisted, that there was an alternative to living within a countries means - and creditors that have you by the meat balls HAVE to understand when the people vote for anti 'austerity' governments/measures - by lending you yet MORE money.

How is that 'alternative' working out for them, where would left wing administrations have taken us with £1.5 trillion of National Debt saying we still need to 'spend, spend, spend' coz someone else will pick up the tab?

Yet the Conservative voter were misled? Guffaw.

be interesting to see how it plays out in greece

Ffs some of you people really need to open your eyes.

'tories don't know exactly how many people have died as a direct result of their policies'? They can't know? Rubbish. There have been a number of very well-documented cases.

The investigations into this issue have been ongoing for some time and huge amounts of evidence have been amassed showing what is happening and how, and how little positive benefit has accrued. Here's the transcript from a House of Commons investigative enquiry.

Moreover the DWP themselves always knew it. Pg 22 of that transcript, I think it's pg 22, quotes from the DWP's manual to show that they always knew that their policies would cause extreme suffering, potentially leading to death.

They just don't care. Takes them ages to investigate and what has happened as a result of the findings. Big fat Nothing. Yet they can implement MP pay rises sooo quickly immediately after an election.

Wish they had gone in May, but I really don't think they will last the whole 5 years. I hope not anyway.

Here's a link to the black triangle campaign's list of deaths, with links. There have been others.

Of course they'll last the whole five years. And with the motley crew of Labour candidates (bar a couple) they will last a lot longer. Labour supporters must wake up. They're all but finished.

The quote from page 22 is:

“It would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer a deterioration in their health if they were without essential items, such as food, clothing, heating and accommodation or…essential items."

Not that a sanction will lead to this or potentially death.

There is little evidence that any benefits changes would have stopped any of those deaths

The benefits changes would not have stopped the deaths no. However they might have made final weeks far more stressful than they needed to be.

My friend was found "fit for work" despite a serious underlying heart problem. She died just three weeks later and spent much of that time worrying about how she was going to cope financially. She was not in any way "fit for work" but I doubt the DWP will say "whoops...let's take that one off our figures" when they drip feed their "all sickness claimants are scroungers" to the media.

RIP Julie, aged just 49 and definitely was NOT "fit for work".

Personally I would like to know how many others have died after being found "fit for work".

General benefit sanctions need much better regulation. Too many people are sanctioned on the flimsiest of evidence. I worked with one family who were sanctioned when the Dad did not attend a meeting at the jobcentre. The fact he was in hospital having had a stroke was immaterial it seemed. The family had contacted the jobcentre to tell them but it cut no ice with some jobsworth or other.

Been to talk to my MP about this and other cases.

Instead of complaining about this

A classic case of missing the point completely. I did not complain about this. I was pointing out that the richest in the UK do pay more than their fair share. Nothing wrong with that. I do not want ordinary people to pay a larger proportion of the total tax take.