Should Peter Sutcliffe & similar get incapacity benefit?

[JiveLad]

The case being brought by a murderer and a rapist, both convicted in the 1980's and incacerated in Broadmoor is this: after they have served their term, if they are deemed too dangerous to be let out, then they should be entitled to benefits. (If they succeed, then Peter Sutcliffe could follow suit).

Apparently there are already 150 of Britain's most violent offenders who are getting £95/week incapacity benefit: they are in Broadmoor, Rampton - and places like that.

I don't quite understand the subtleties - but I think it is the fact that the 150 above were unfit to stand trial anyway - so went straight to the secure mental hospital. The new case is that the offenders were mentally fit (or stood trial) originally - but are now in Broadmoor. (Not sure if that is the case - so please correct....).

Now £95/week is about £5000 per year - and you already have your board and lodgings paid for, no food bills, no TV licence to pay, no electricity/gas bills. So that seems like quite a windfall.....have I missed something? Am I being too hard?

[David Bailey]

So that seems like quite a windfall.....have I missed something? Am I being too hard?

Yeah - do you know how much drugs cost in stir nowdays? Pah, £95 a week is nothing...

[batnurse]

Now £95/week is about £5000 per year - and you already have your board and lodgings paid for, no food bills, no TV licence to pay, no electricity/gas bills. So that seems like quite a windfall.....have I missed something? Am I being too hard?

Blimey. I've got three jobs and I don't have £95 a week disposable income...

[Maxine]

Apparently there are already 150 of Britain's most violent offenders who are getting £95/week incapacity benefit: they are in Broadmoor, Rampton - and places like that.

I don't quite understand the subtleties - but I think it is the fact that the 150 above were unfit to stand trial anyway - so went straight to the secure mental hospital. The new case is that the offenders were mentally fit (or stood trial) originally - but are now in Broadmoor. (Not sure if that is the case - so please correct....).

He may be being held under a Section 37/41 Under the Mental Health Act (1983) (2007) (restrictions of movement and leave) It is up to the Ministry of Justice to decide if he should be allowed to be moved from a High Secure Unit.

As for paying incapacity benefit and tax payers footing the bill, unfortunately we do not have any say as to how our taxes are spent

[Barry Shnikov]

He may be being held under a Section 37/41 Under the Mental Health Act (1983) (2007) (restrictions of movement and leave) It is up to the Ministry of Justice to decide if he should be allowed to be moved from a High Secure Unit.

As for paying incapacity benefit and tax payers footing the bill, unfortunately we do not have any say as to how our taxes are spent

Yes, we do. Locally, we get elections every couple of years; nationally, we get them every 5 years or so.

Plus, in between times, it's perfectly legitimate to notify your MP or councillor if taxes are being spent in a way of which you disapprove.

That might not be as much influence as you would like, but it's significantly different form not having 'any say' at all.

[rubyred]

Blimey. I've got three jobs and I don't have £95 a week disposable income...

There are many people out there working their socks off and being taxed to high heaven, also quite deserving cases who fall down on the assessments and are battling through and not in receipt of what would just make them a little bit more comfortable.

Yes, we do. Locally, we get elections every couple of years; nationally, we get them every 5 years or so.

Plus, in between times, it's perfectly legitimate to notify your MP or councillor if taxes are being spent in a way of which you disapprove.

That might not be as much influence as you would like, but it's significantly different form not having 'any say' at all.

Again

Sutcliffe is the subject of a section of the Mental Health Act, and many who are suffering mental illness need extra monies to access services to make better life chances for themselves. Food, clothing and shelter being the basics, perhaps also access to therapies, perscribed medication to enable them to work. As I understand it all Sutcliffe's basic needs are met under the provision of the Act and his situation will be reviewed on a regular basis, so why does he need more than anyone else?

[Andy McGregor]

Yes, we do. Locally, we get elections every couple of years; nationally, we get them every 5 years or so.

Plus, in between times, it's perfectly legitimate to notify your MP or councillor if taxes are being spent in a way of which you disapprove.

That might not be as much influence as you would like, but it's significantly different form not having 'any say' at all.

Having been a local Councillor I can tell you that you can have your say, in person, at the meeting where the decision will be made. If there is an item on the agenda and you have something to say which you feel should be considered you can turn up at the meeting and make your statement at the start of the meeting. You can't join in the debate: that's what you elected your Councillors to do on your behalf.

This facility is under-used by the public. In my years as a Councillor I only heard a handful of statements from the public. However, each time we did hear from a member of the public their views were raised during the debate.

Nationally you can contact your MP via many means and you can make an appointment to see him/her in person at a surgery.

Please remember, we elected these people to work for us. I like to think of elections as a job interview with a large interview panel. If you get enough votes from the panel you get the job. Of course it does help if you join the party which people dislike the least.

I still remember Poll Tax. This was an unpopular tax and was changed due to people power. Enough people said they didn't like it and it went. That's because the Government is there to do what the people want. And, every 5 years or so we get to choose: if we don't like what they did they lose their jobs. It's called Democracy and people are literally dying in many countries to get this style of administration.

Should Peter Sutcliffe get benefits? We are a society. One of the responsibilities of a society is to identify and care for the sick, including the insane. Maybe we should approve if a part of his care requires cash from a benefit. On the other side, we have the families of his victims - how would they feel if they heard Peter Sutcliffe is spending that money on fags and beer ...

.. money they'd paid in taxes

[ducasi]

If someone is truly ill and cannot work, then I cannot grudge them a bit of cash to help them get by.

If someone is so ill that 'the state' has deemed that they must be kept locked up for the safety of the general public, I think a little bit of cash for them to spend on themselves and their dependants ain't much to ask for.

[Villemo]

Funny though... people who are actually looking for work only get £60 a week in Job Seekers Allowance...(single, no kids etc).

[ducasi]

Here's a nice deconstruction of the story...