Sue Marsh reports on the Mail and Telegraph misreporting of disability benefits.
Sue Marsh blogs at Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Oh how very depressing days like today are if you’re sick or disabled. Disability campaigners spend months trying to build up awareness of sickness (ESA) and Disability (DLA) benefits, only to have their work totally undone in just a few minutes by a government intent on twisting the facts to suit their agenda and a media who don’t even know the difference between the two benefits.
“Two million claimants on disability living allowance face being stripped of payments”, shouts the Telegraph, whilst listing a range of at best dubious claims from the Department for Work and Pensions.
The most persistent of these claims is that claimants are simply given DLA by the wheelchair-fairy based on no evidence and are never checked again.
This is nonsense. Claimants must fill in a 40-page form accompanied by evidence from consultants and health professionals. Their claims are reassessed regularly, usually every three years unless an indefinite award has been granted.
The Mail go further, claiming:
• Up to 500,000 are ready to start work immediately;
• People on lifetime benefit are more likely to retire or die than get a job;
• 38 per cent just need the right support to get back to work.
Sadly, the Daily Mail actually have the wrong benefit.
Letters aren’t, as they claim, being sent out today to people claiming DLA asking them to submit reassessments. Letters however are being sent to those claiming Incapacity Benefit summoning them to assessments for the migration to Employment Support Allowance (ESA).
In a staggering bit of misreporting, the Mail also claims:
“Out of the 1,626 people assessed in Burnley and Aberdeen a third of those questioned were taken off the DLA and instead put onto Jobseeker’s Allowance.”
No, that would be Incapacity Benefit too.
Of the 500,000 “ready to start work immediately”, the Mail forgets to point out that assessments have been called “unfit for purpose” by every main investigation into them, including the Citizens Advice Bureau and the government’s own advisory committee. whilst 40% of these “miracle cures” are being overturned at tribunals, costing the taxpayer £19.8 million.
Most people awarded DLA for life have severe, degenerative conditions that will never improve such as cerebral palsy, severe learning disabilities, total paralysis or kidney failure. The government seems unduly shocked that people with lifelong disabilities should receive awards for life.
Surely constant reassessment of those people whose conditions will never improve is the single most ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money since someone decided MPs ought to get expenses on top of their already generous salaries?
Coalition plans to reform ESA and DLA are flawed and many of us spend our lives trying to inform people and fight for modifications to the welfare reform bill that could end up saving great distress.
This level of reporting is not only lazy, but it could be dangerous. Sadly, all the while the DWP are happy to twist the figures themselves; I can’t imagine things will improve.
121 Responses to “Right wing press need to check facts before screaming at disabled”
Colin Stone
I am 59, and have ‘received’ incapacity benefit for 2 years since forced ill-health retirement. In fact my benefit is reduced to zero because of my pension income and I receive nothing, but it does pay my National Insurance contribution. Maybe I COULD do some job on my good days, but who would be keen to employ an chronic arthritic 59 yr old who is unable to even leave home on bad days?
kirst
RT @leftfootfwd: Right wing press need to check facts before screaming at disabled http://bit.ly/hy8tWV
Alexandra Haines
https://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/04/mail-telegraph-disability-benefits-myths/
Anon E Mouse
Sue Marsh – Firstly this is your article and not mine so I assume you are the one who should answer the questions not me. For starters the headline is ridiculous and devalues your posting and although I accept it wasn’t yours, why you didn’t ask for a revision I do not know.
It implies that someone is “Screaming at the disabled” and yet I have never seen a single factual example of that because it isn’t true and serves only to weaken the case presented.
You claim you have linked to “evidence” but I see no sign of that either – just a report from the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Hardly evidence and certainly not from the government.
Your first paragraph makes claims about the government. Please tell me where the government has “twisted the facts”. Your article does not link to a single government minister just your biased assertion which I do not believe and I also do not believe stuff I read in the papers either. Your remark about “twisting” actually links to another page on this very site (DWP War? – Please) which again is an opinion not based in fact – that author even has the cheek to link to another page he wrote.
Your problem here is that I disagree with you and in typical left leaning fashion you don’t like it. I have asked you why you do not believe 500,000 people aren’t fit for work and you refuse to reply.
Regarding “poor treatment” in responses, how would you describe a person saying they would report your spouse for misconduct because the truth wasn’t something they wanted to hear or that I was “uncaring” because I believe that governments have a responsibility to ensure our money goes to the right people.
What is wrong with hard working taxpayers expecting some competence in the distribution of the money we worked for? You may argue that the system is defective or whatever but you’re not doing that Sue.
You are making blanket assumptions, made with a clear political bias, against this government rightly attempting to clamp down on benefit fraud. Fraud is wrong and shouldn’t be accepted by anyone – it isn’t fair on the people who do need that benefit and to be totally consistent here I make no comment on people in genuine need.
Finally I assert that you devalue your position by being so clearly biased and partisan and the message gets drowned out when it is an important issue that does need to be addressed…
Sue Marsh
Anon E Mouse – I have no idea why you’re still digging.
1) The headline isn’t mine – get over it.
2) I’ve linked to two studies to prove that the assessments are unfit for purpose.
3) Chris Grayling has been reported to the HoC under breach of the minister code at least 4 times that I am aware of for releasing politicised press releases.
4) I did say why I don’t believe 500,000 will be genuinely fit for work – 40% of decisions are going to tribunal remember? With up to 80% of decisions overturned.
I shan’t reply any more, because in the face of overwhelmingly evidence you are simply becoming more and more personal and it just looks embarrassing on the thread.