[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Personality disorders are a thorny subject, because those living such a disorder are morally unscrupulous and whose inclinations fit the profile of a criminal. .

I could not disagree more with you. There are so many personality disorders, that for you to state that those living with such disorders are morally unscrupulous and whose inclinations fit the profile of a criminal - is absurd at best, and shows a distinct lack of knowledge as far as personality disorders is concerned.

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

When anything is done in good faith, there is a risk of somebody taking advantage. The only truly foolproof method of fending off layabouts, attention *****s and shiftless jobsworths is pretending the people who really do need help don't exist..

Pretending the people who really do need the help don't exist? I have not a clue what you mean by this or how that relates to fending off layabouts etc.

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Many (those on IB and ESA) are bricking themselves because they will be called to another degrading capability assessment (which are notorious for recording inaccurate information) and a needless application for Income Support only to win back their ESA/IB at the end of the appeal period. Others (those on DLA) because they will have mountains of paperwork to look forward to and an automatic cut to their benefit.

Well I'm afraid that's life -no one said it was easy (it's not a bed of roses for the mentally sound either !!). We have systems in place that afford those who are genuinely ill, a good source of income via different types of benefit and allowances - to ensure that they have decent standards of liviing and not working for it (even if they have never paid into the system). I dare say that assessments may not be the most pleasant of experiences: but I'd say it was a small price to pay for the end result.

As I say, assessments are required - no use bleating about it - and the mountains of paperwork etc are partly designed to try to discourage fraudsters - it's not ideal but it is what it is. Anyone with a genuine illness should have no issues in passing their assessments - and those who are genuinely ill and who don't....when appealled, their cases are usually won if and when challenged. I suspect not as many true and genuine cases refused benefits/awards. It may not be ideal: but if it has to be the way it has to go, to avoid paying out to liars, cheats and fraudsters, it's unfortunate but there is a damn good reason for it. As I say: people with clear and serious issues may not look forward to the assessments: but ultimately, if they are genuine, they should not fear the result.
[/QUOTE]

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I could not disagree more with you. There are so many personality disorders, that for you to state that those living with such disorders are morally unscrupulous and whose inclinations fit the profile of a criminal - is absurd at best, and shows a distinct lack of knowledge as far as personality disorders is concerned.

I'm sorry, I understand why my comment came across as a sweeping statement. You are right that not everybody with a personality disorder is evil. The main difficulty those with Dependent Personality Disorder for instance is that they are the ones getting exploited by those closest to them. My point is that those whose personality disporder drives them to attention-seeking, manipulative and narcissistic behaviour (particularly those in Cluster B) lack a basic conscience and stubbornly shift the blame for all of their problems to others.

Munchausen Syndrome is not one of the classic DSM-IV personality disorders, but I believe it to be rampant among those who lie about or exaggerate their illness for attention, state money and support from social services. Some -those with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy- will use their children as vehicles for this.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Pretending the people who really do need the help don't exist? I have not a clue what you mean by this or how that relates to fending off layabouts etc.

My point it is no good saying the only reason we can't make the benefits system 100% impervious to fraudsters because the system is 'too soft'. More to the point, what effective means do we have of putting a stop to it? We already have a capability assessment (carried out by private firms I hasten to add) and appeal system that costs the taxpayer more money than every benefit fraudster put together. If you think this and the genuine claimants who lose out is a worthy sacrifice then I honestly can't fathom why you feel ripped off as a taxpayer by the claimants themselves.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Well I'm afraid that's life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought...ng_clich.C3.A9

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

-no one said it was easy (it's not a bed of roses for the mentally sound either !!). We have systems in place that afford those who are genuinely ill, a good source of income via different types of benefit and allowances - to ensure that they have decent standards of liviing and not working for it (even if they have never paid into the system). I dare say that assessments may not be the most pleasant of experiences: but I'd say it was a small price to pay for the end result.

Except it's not a small price to pay. Both the taxpayer and those claiming ESA and DLA because they need it are the losers in this game. The only people better off are the politicians who scapegoat those on benefits and companies like ATOS who are lining their pockets in a time of economic hardship.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

As I say, assessments are required - no use bleating about it - and the mountains of paperwork etc are partly designed to try to discourage fraudsters - it's not ideal but it is what it is. Anyone with a genuine illness should have no issues in passing their assessments - and those who are genuinely ill and who don't....when appealled, their cases are usually won if and when challenged. I suspect not as many true and genuine cases refused benefits/awards. It may not be ideal: but if it has to be the way it has to go, to avoid paying out to liars, cheats and fraudsters, it's unfortunate but there is a damn good reason for it. As I say: people with clear and serious issues may not look forward to the assessments: but ultimately, if they are genuine, they should not fear the result.

Whether the assessments are needed is highly debatable. Personally I see nothing wrong with accepting the testimony of people's GP's or psychiatrists. You know... people who are actually qualified and know and understand their patient. Even if they were necessary, they need serious reform, but as long as ATOS meet the governments targets for taking people off sickness benefits, I don't see that happening any time soon.

I am sorry, but it is all well and good appealing to received wisdom and commonsense myopia by telling those less fortunate than yourself to 'get one with it, times are tough'. But what people need to bear in mind is that those unable to work on grounds of depression or mental illness are not at fault for their predicament. Why should they have to divulge the nitty gritty details of their everyday life to prove time and time again to a panel of total strangers that they need their money? This mentality only serves to perpetuate the stigma of mental illness and the gut instinct of the general public (and senior civil servants) to trivialise it as something self-inflicted and less serious than physical ailments.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

I'm sorry, I understand why my comment came across as a sweeping statement. You are right that not everybody with a personality disorder is evil. The main difficulty those with Dependent Personality Disorder for instance is that they are the ones getting exploited by those closest to them. My point is that those whose personality disporder drives them to attention-seeking, manipulative and narcissistic behaviour (particularly those in Cluster B) lack a basic conscience and stubbornly shift the blame for all of their problems to others.

Munchausen Syndrome is not one of the classic DSM-IV personality disorders, but I believe it to be rampant among those who lie about or exaggerate their illness for attention, state money and support from social services. Some -those with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy- will use their children as vehicles for this.

My point it is no good saying the only reason we can't make the benefits system 100% impervious to fraudsters because the system is 'too soft'. More to the point, what effective means do we have of putting a stop to it? We already have a capability assessment (carried out by private firms I hasten to add) and appeal system that costs the taxpayer more money than every benefit fraudster put together. If you think this and the genuine claimants who lose out is a worthy sacrifice then I honestly can't fathom why you feel ripped off as a taxpayer by the claimants themselves.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought...ng_clich.C3.A9

Except it's not a small price to pay. Both the taxpayer and those claiming ESA and DLA because they need it are the losers in this game. The only people better off are the politicians who scapegoat those on benefits and companies like ATOS who are lining their pockets in a time of economic hardship.

Whether the assessments are needed is highly debatable. Personally I see nothing wrong with accepting the testimony of people's GP's or psychiatrists. You know... people who are actually qualified and know and understand their patient. Even if they were necessary, they need serious reform, but as long as ATOS meet the governments targets for taking people off sickness benefits, I don't see that happening any time soon.

I am sorry, but it is all well and good appealing to received wisdom and commonsense myopia by telling those less fortunate than yourself to 'get one with it, times are tough'. But what people need to bear in mind is that those unable to work on grounds of depression or mental illness are not at fault for their predicament. Why should they have to divulge the nitty gritty details of their everyday life to prove time and time again to a panel of total strangers that they need their money? This mentality only serves to perpetuate the stigma of mental illness and the gut instinct of the general public (and senior civil servants) to trivialise it as something self-inflicted and less serious than physical ailments.

I dont believe I have said that geninue claimants should not receive every single penny- every single benefit that they are due. But there has to be a means of separating the wheat from the chaff. It may not be the case that the current assessments are ideal - and I don't believe I suggested that either. I happen to believe that GP/Psych assesments, reports etc should have a very high weighting in favour of the genuine claimants - but unfortunately - due to the abuse of the system, we have the situation we now have. Is it ideal? No, but it is better to ensure that monies and other needy benefits are not given out to those who simply do not need them - but who do claim falsely.

Neither did I suggest that those less fortunate than myself should 'just get on with it,times are hard' either. (and to be frank, as is known, that is a complete misconception as far as some mental illnesses are concerned - which is part of the problem for those who don't understand MHI. Some DO think that, and that is due to their lack of knowledge or understanding).

What I AM saying is that there are (too) many people, charlatans and free riders who are able to abuse the system, able to ham up the act and to no small cost either - and it is those people I direct my feelings on the matter to. Not those in genuine need.

I personally am not of the opinion that MHI 'brought this upon themselves, or put themselves into that predicament'...... but I find your thoughts on 'why should they have to divulge their details to strangers on a panel' so abhorrent? Are you then saying that we should simply accept what ALL claimants say is to be taken as honest and true? Clearly that's what has been happening - to the deteriment of those who are genuine. Hence the need for change.

Is the change ideal? No, I'd say it wasn't - but until someone comes up with a totally foolproof one that will not 'offend' some section of those claiming (bearing in mind here: the idea is not to refuse those in need, it is to filter out those who are cheating) - stricter controls have to be put in place to stop those abusing the system.