Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Benefit cheats winning appeals - Mail sinks to new low
Sorry for inflicting this on you on a bright Monday morning, but I couldn’t let this one go without comment.
Yesterday in the online Mail (not sure if in print edition as I wouldn’t wipe my you-know-what-with-it, let alone buy it) was this quite abhorrent article, something that would appear to have been drafted in some kind of collusion with DWP Press Office, possibly the MoJ as well.
This “news” article begins (my emphasis):
Benefits claimants cheats are able to keep money they are not entitled to because government officials fail to turn up to legal hearings, it emerged today.
The Department for Work and Pensions sent lawyers to just 4 per cent of tribunals held last year to rule on decisions to cut benefits.
It means that in many cases people are able to successfully argue in favour of keeping their money, because the government has failed to turn up to challenge it.
If you want to read anymore of this distorted and dangerous garbage, have a look here Thousands of benefits claimants win legal right to keep money because government officials turn up to only 4% of tribunals
I’m stepping away from the keyboard for a while to calm down, but surely there must be some way to officially challenge this utter propaganda and myth?
in the telegraph too
apparently ‘Benefits lawyers say the situation helps their clients because their testimony goes unchallenged by DWP presenting officers, leaving the judges with only written submissions to go on ...’
A read of the Telegraph version of this article is more revealing. It looks as though the DWP is not responsible for this. It appears that Labour MP Sadiq Khan got the somewhat questionable info’ (note that the DWP said it has done no research on the matter), either from his right as an MP or from a FOI Act request, in order to attack the government. How much Mr Khan and shadow DWP minister, Rachel Reeves (also quoted), know about the issues is debateable, but the real villain is the Mail for its usual appalling standards of journalism. I have rarely seen such a deliberate attempt to raise public anger by playing on its ignorance of a subject. This journalistic version of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre should be reported to the Press Complaints Commission. Not that that’s going to make much difference. I also suspect that Joseph Hughes, the solicitor mentioned in the Article, has been quoted out of context but that’s his own fault for being stupid enough to talk to the press.
I think you’re correct in your analysis Paul, this does seem to be the official opposition providing ammunition to the right wing gutter press, that allows them to run wholly distorted articles about Tribunals, success rates, and the actual role of a PO when they do turn up at a hearing.
If nothing else, I can’t see this sitting at all well with FTT judges. I do hope there is some serious flack (but I doubt anyone will bother to report it if there is, more’s the pity).
As the DWP folks are reading this at this very moment, they’ll issue a rebuttal of the Mail’s nonsense.
Won’t you chaps…....?
As the DWP folks are reading this at this very moment, they’ll issue a rebuttal of the Mail’s nonsense.
Won’t you chaps…....?
Nice one Andrew!
What irritates the hell out of me is the use of the word “cheat” as besmirching anyone and everyone who needs to go to a social security appeal hearing. It’s an outrageous slander against people falling foul of maladministration by DWP and HMRC and is lower than low.
And the effect of all this?
See report ‘Bad News for Disabled People: How the newspapers are reporting disability’
http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_214917_en.pdf
“Views on Disabled People
In the light of our findings in relation to the changes in the way disability
is being presented and reported in the media we were interested in
trying to find out if or how this change had impacted on and effected
people’s views of disability and benefits. This topic was a major element
of the focus groups and one of the questions we asked the groups to
consider was what they thought the percentage of people who were
fraudulently claiming disability benefits was. The responses varied from
‘about 10%’ right up to 70%. The following is a typical example of the
responses we received to this question:
Informant 1: I’d say half
Informant 2: Yeah, pretty high
Informant 3: Nearer70%
Informant 4: Yeah I think it’s more than half”
and that leads on to this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hate-crimes-against-disabled-people-soar-to-a-record-level-7858841.html
I thought inciting hate crime was an offence?
The mail dont do hate do they??
I asked the mail if they were proud of themselves for stirring up so much hatred.
They didnt print it for some reason….....
Is it actually a “new low”? Really?
A quick search of online headlines for said papers suggests it’s really more of the same. Depressing, but hardly new or surprising.
Is it actually a “new low”? Really?
A quick search of online headlines for said papers suggests it’s really more of the same. Depressing, but hardly new or surprising.
I’d say equating everyone who attends a social security appeal tribunal as implicitly being a “cheat” to be quite a new approach. We’ve seen them spin stories about individual benefit claimants previously, but I can’t remember them taking quite such a broad-brushed approach previously.
Further, given the recent stories about charging appellants for taking their case to tribunal, on top of the fact of civil legal aid being withdrawn for welfare benefits advice more broadly, as well as the introduction of the potentially unlawful MR stage of revision which some suspect is deliberately intended to reduce the ability of claimants to appeal in the first place, and I’d say that’s a pretty toxic mix to be making such comments in relation to.
It is however an insult to claimants, to the Tribunals and to the truth, with the English language as collateral damage.
Were I a judge or tribunal member, I would link this with previous insults levelled by politicians, to the effect that allowing claimants to win cases ‘traps them in to benefit dependency’, and I would worry about the future of the independence of the judiciary.
DWP should be fairly insulted too,for the inference is that their submissions are rubbish.
Perhaps responses are needed from reps and judiciary to outline what really happens at appeals, and to invite the Mule to stop twisting the truth.
.
[meanwhile at DWP - ‘Alert! Alert! He’s plotting again!!!’]
[ Edited: 10 Jun 2014 at 02:03 pm by Andrew Dutton ]Considering the outcry from Government when they feel the media (usually the “lefty” BBC) are portraying their actions, indiscretions etc in a negative light, I never fail to be astounded at their readiness to encourage the tabloids to peddle their propaganda. Hypocrisy of the highest order!
Interesting that this comes in a week where government have been taken to task over the inclusion of Tory “key phrases” in Civil Service press releases.
Tony - yes, I see your point. I make a distinction between those DWP staff who are trying to do a decent job and who will feel as insulted as everyone else at the slur on their work, and the PR-androids who spout (seemingly willingly) political propaganda.
Yes - there’s a difference between what ‘the DWP’ says and what it’s employees say
A perfect example:
DWP staff unanimously back campaign for:
• Fair, decent levels of benefit
• The repeal of the Bedroom Tax and benefit cap
• A mass council house building scheme
• The abolition of the work capability assessment
• The abolition of workfare and removal of the sanctions regime
• A publicly-run, fair and decent social security system as part of a welfare state based on people’s needs.
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/campaigning-against-attacks-on-welfare
But the official DWP line on the Work Capability Assessment, sanctions regime, bedroom tax and benefit cap is given by this document:
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/simplifying-the-welfare-system-and-making-sure-work-pays
So putting the two together: Benefit staff are unanimously opposed to their employers official position…
Time to get a new job?