ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
hope he gets better soon, really value his contributions
even the scatological ones he often makes
Relapse is mostly physical, rather than physical and cognitive, so I'm thankful for small mercies.
DWP planning home visits to check benefits
- Thread starter Theisticle
- Start date
Relapse is mostly physical, rather than physical and cognitive, so I'm thankful for small mercies.
Sounds a lot like my father was.
Realising that you're being taken advantage of (the underclaim doesn't go to people even more in need than you think you are) is a very powerful incentive to face the forms.
I think I must have misunderstood you. My father was so stubborn in his beliefs (he was even proud to be a bigot ffs), that even that knowledge wouldn't have persuaded him to claim benefits. He hated bureaucracy, the "nanny state" etc. He was a total fuckwit.Realising that you're being taken advantage of (the underclaim doesn't go to people even more in need than you think you are) is a very powerful incentive to face the forms.
I should perhaps add that this was after the man had already had to claim Incapacity Benefit when the industrial injury payment ran out. He was convinced that benefits were on a par with charity.
So, before he'd even claim IB, VP had to sit down with him and show him roughly how much NI he'd paid in (a long and very physically hard working life), compared with how little he'd ever get out.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
TBF my dad (the aged git Greebo is talking about!) only claimed after we'd pestered him for about 4 years solid, and even then, we filled out the forms for him!
Of course, once he was getting Attendance Allowance (we started pestering him when he was 62, when he'd have been able to claim both components of DLA, he caved in when he was 66, so only entitled to the "care" element of DLA, AKA "Attendance Allowance") he became quite evangelical about it, and as Greebo says, once he was sat down and shown how much NI he'd paid in real terms throughout his working life, versus how much he'd likely get back post-retirement, he no longer felt any guilt whatsoever. He no longer saw it as "charity", but as an entitlement he'd paid for, over and over again.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
doppel-post!
I'm glad you finally got through to your dad about his entitlement. Mine was so ideologically blinkered, that the only benefit he didn't have an aversion to, was his pension.
Self-inflicted poverty
waht do you think the consequence should be if i were to refuse to invite the DWP in?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
At a guess, they'd want to schedule another visit as soon as possible and would give your affairs additional scrutiny.
Pretty much. Still, he was a nasty, racist, homophobic, bully. So I'm not too sad he's gone.Self-inflicted poverty
Would theat be another appointment they don't tell you about?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
My question was directed at you, I wanted to know what you think should happen. I think it's pretty clear what the DWP's position would be. Besides Devereux is a snide tosser.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I imagine Deveraux is one of those people who thinks that 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
It's what I would do if I was running the DWP.
you didn't answer my question. I asked you: what do you think the consequence should be if i were to refuse to invite the DWP in?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Another visit. Increased scrutiny. As I said.
So the solution to the problem is to repeat the problem?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
What's the problem?
Oh dear.
so you want to just keep knocking at someone's door? What good will that achieve?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
I suppose that if I ran a JC+ office and we were faced with a nutter who declared that his home was his castle, nailed garlic to the door and refused to let our home visit chaps in, then I'd suggest that we invited him to our offices for a meeting.
I'd also suspect that he quite possibly wasn't worth spending that much time on as he clearly didn't mind attracting the additional scrutiny commensurate with being a pain in the arse. So I wouldn't even ask for much additional prep to be done in advance of the meeting. If any of his claims didn't stand up to scrutiny, though, I'd be disinclined towards leniency.
Okay? Any other public services you want me to roleplay? Pest control? Parks horticulture?
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
nice to know that you regard benefit claimants as "nutters".
reveals more about your motivations than the rest of the blurb you're spewing out.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
I certainly regard Awesome Wells as a nutter.
I don't, and didn't, equate claimants with privacy loons. There is some overlap, because privacy loons, like the rest of us, use a variety of public services.
Your point about my motivations is unclear but doesn't seem in any way fair.
I don't, and didn't, equate claimants with privacy loons. There is some overlap, because privacy loons, like the rest of us, use a variety of public services.
Your point about my motivations is unclear but doesn't seem in any way fair.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
do you want me to give you a shovel so you can keep digging yourself a bit deeper?
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Are you saying a benefit claimant in the UK in 2014, in their concerns about home visits, will be primarily worried about abstract privacy issues? Is it not likely to be something else?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Explain what it is, then. Don't just say something question-begging like "it's intrusive".
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
You've had it explained to you - it's about tightening the regime surrounding claimants and it's about reducing the number of claimants. However, even in your social democracy, you know this. However, you'd rather characterise it as being about 'nutters'.
Similar threads
- Poll
