Did David Cameron admit multiple murders to Andrew Marr?

David Cameron tries to defend the indefensible on Andrew Marr's Sunday morning TV show.

David Cameron tries to defend the indefensible on Andrew Marr’s Sunday morning TV show.

Soon-to-be-former Prime Minister David Cameron, the man who once told us a government should be judged on how well it treats the most vulnerable in society, showed us all exactly what he meant in his interview with Andrew Marr.

It means he is quite happy for them to die, as punishment for failing to attend an interview at the Job Centre. Grilled over his attitude, he made it clear that he was perfectly happy to allow the continuation of a system that kills – if it saves money.

Read it for yourself (transcript courtesy of kittysjones’ blog, boldings mine):

AM:. Well you also talked to Evan Davis about the £22 billion of welfare cuts you’ve made so far as if that was easy. Do you accept that has hurt a lot of poor and vulnerable people?

DC: Well it has involved difficult decisions. But of course as we’ve done that we’ve been getting two million people into work, 900,000 people…

AM: Difficult decisions for you; a lot of real pain and suffering for people out there.

DC: Well, we have protected, for instance, the pension, we’ve protected benefits for the lowest paid, we’ve always made sure that we’ve increased spending on disability benefits rather than reduced it. But crucially the 900,000 people we’ve got off welfare and into work – that has actually saved money but it’s also been good for our country and crucially good for them: a job is the best route out of poverty that there is [a lie; more working people are having to claim benefits, because their jobs don’t pay enough, than workless families and pensioners combined].

AM: What about the million people depending on food banks?

DC: Well obviously I want a country where people don’t depend on food banks, we did something-

AM: But why are more people depending on food banks?

DC: One of the things we did was that Labour – because they didn’t like the PR of this – they didn’t advertise or promote the existence of food banks through job centres. We changed that because we thought that was, that was basically sort of selfish and shortminded…

AM: And according to the Trussell Trust, who run these banks, that accounts for just three per cent of people using food banks at the moment so it’s not a significant thing. But can I take you to an individual case, James [he meant David] Clapson.

Clapson, who was a former soldier, worked very hard for a long time then was on benefits, failed to turn up to two job centre interviews, [Mr Clapson only missed one interview] had his benefits removed for a month. He was diabetic, his insulin couldn’t be refrigerated and he died two weeks later.

Now that is the kind of case that is coming up again and again and again and shows that the welfare cuts have been agonisingly painful for real people out there.

DM: Well we have hardship funds and councils have hardship funds for exactly those sorts of tragic cases but if you’re asking me…

AM: It didn’t work.

DC: If you are asking me, is it right that people who are asked to turn up for interviews or asked to fill in a CV or asked to apply for a job should have to do those things before getting benefits then yes – it’s right that we do have that system in place. But we always, as I put it on the steps of…

AM: But the system has been very very aggressive. Another case [is] of a man who had learning difficulties and filled in his form by hand rather than by computer and was refused benefits. There [are] lots of these cases as you won’t have a review. You should have a review of the system surely?

DC: I look at all of those individual cases and all of those cases can be addressed by the hardship funds and by the flexibilities that are there in the system. But we have sanctions for a reason; people watching this programme…

AM: You don’t get the hardship fund for two weeks.

So there you have it. David Clapson was sanctioned off-benefit for no very good reason (as is typical in the Conservative-run system). David Cameron thinks that is okay. He was unable to receive hardship funds for two weeks. David Cameron thinks that is okay.

He died. Because David Cameron thinks the sanctions and the rules for hardship funds are okay, he therefore must be perfectly comfortable with David Clapson’s death.

David Cameron has also refused to review the system, despite being told that Clapson’s is one of many, many cases and despite saying that he personally examines all such cases.

Clearly he is, therefore, perfectly comfortable with the mass deaths of benefit claimants, the sick and the disabled that have taken place under his government’s rules.

This blog has long argued that any deaths of benefit claimants that have taken place because of failings in the system are regrettable but do not, individually, mean that anybody is personally responsible.

However, this blog has also argued – for many years – that this ceases to be the case when the government is made aware of the deaths and either fails – or intentionally ignores – the need to review and change the system.

In such cases, it becomes clear that the intention is to cause those deaths.

If deaths take place due to the gross negligence of a person or people responsible for an organisation such as a government department, that is corporate homicide.

If deaths take place because such a person has been informed of the risk to life and refused to take action, there is a strong argument to state, that is murder.

(The refusal to take action implies an intention for people to lose their lives.)

Therefore there is a strong argument that David Cameron has confessed that his party has participated in the murder of many benefit claimants.

Does he deserve your vote?

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have enjoyed this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
investigating the apparent crimes of our politicians.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

109 thoughts on “Did David Cameron admit multiple murders to Andrew Marr?

  1. joanna may

    Yes but will anyone ever listen or take any notice? The fact that they are still high up in opinion polls suggests to me that no-one cares! I am finding out how their cuts are affecting my human rights to medical treatment, but no-one cares, what is the point of human rights? When no-one has them at all!!

  2. Jeffery Davies

    They know they know whot they done but untill the ninty nine percent who aint rich wake up to this fact just like that summer of 41 action t4 they cull the stock through denial of benefits they all should be before the hague answering for their crimes against their own peoples jeff3

  3. NMac

    A man who can exploit his own disabled and now dead son for political purposes can have no feelings whatsoever for other people. Cameron is a slimy snake-oil salesman who epitomises the greedy, selfish Nasty Party.

  4. M de Mowbray

    I am surprised, impressed, relieved and grateful that a reporter has FINALLY had the guts to confront the slimy PR Man on these issues. It is clear from his responses that, like Fester McVile, he is so bound up with his own PR and statistical guff that he failed to understand that he effectively confessed to condoning Culpable Manslaughter. He clearly thinks that indivduals’ deaths are good for the country. He does not have enough intelligence and humanity to realise that a nation is MADE UP of individuals, killing one is tantamount to killing any of the others, it’s a complete and casual disregard for humanity. In his mind he has only hurt individuals who “deserved” it, but morally he has killed us all.

    I can only hope that a transcript of this is sent to the United Nations department which is investigating this government. Nothing will be revealed while they are in power, but once out I dearly hope to see what UN does, and if they have this transcript it shows that CaMoron is fully aware that Iain Duncan Smith’s and Fester McEvil’s work HAS led to culpable homicide, and CaMoron is guilty with them.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      It’s ‘corporate manslaughter’ in this country – and that’s only due to negligence.
      Since Cameron has admitted scrutinising the cases and being unwilling to change the policy in order to prevent deaths, it seems we are looking at mass murder.

  5. Chris

    You describe Cameron as the soon to be ex prime minister. H ies already the ex prime minister. we have no ministers and no MPs until after the election

    Drives me mad tat people keep speaking as though he is still in power

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      He is still the Prime Minister, just as Gordon Brown remained Prime Minister for several days after the last General Election, until he realised he couldn’t form a government.
      According to the parliament.uk website: “The Government does not resign when Parliament is dissolved. Government ministers remain in charge of their departments until after the result of the election is known and a new administration is formed.
      “The Prime Minister is appointed by the Sovereign. Ministers are appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. These appointments are independent of the role of MP. Ministers retain their ministerial titles after dissolution, but those who were MPs can no longer use the MP suffix.”

    2. hstorm

      The business of Government carries on even when Parliament is out of action. The departments keep ticking over, and they will still have their own Ministers to decide policy.

      Say the country is invaded by a foreign army during the dissolution of Parliament. By your reasoning here, we would have to wait until after an election to decide whether we should offer a military response, because no one would be in an elected office to make the judgement.

      1. Andy

        Yes, the business of government does continue but there is one important proviso, maybe two. The first is that no business can be enacted – ıe no law changes and, secondly, I am pretty sure that where national security may be involved..like invasion – the leader of the former opposition partakes ın the discussions.

    1. Leeanne

      Because he didn’t admit to anything,the guy has pathetically twisted his words,if labour had not overspent so much the last time then there would be no need for so many drastic cuts,the reason the cons do this everytime is because labour spend to much money or sell all the gold off at ridiculously low price

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        Labour didn’t overspend.
        Check your history and don’t pay attention to the Tory Party’s attempted rewrite.
        There was no need for the drastic cuts – all they did was shrink the economy and make it harder to pay off the debts.
        You also need to check the facts about the gold sell-off. Try relating the amount of money Brown could have had to the amount Osborne has to borrow every three months or so, to compensate for the failure of his policies.

  6. Lee Irving

    This is why we need universal basic income. People should not be left without any income at all. The current system of sanctions and hardship funds is barbaric.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      It helps if you read the article and the arguments it contains before you respond to the question it poses.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        Everything below the section quoted from the TV show is argument supporting the question.
        Conclusive argument, in my opinion.

      2. Andy

        No, it is theory – if you have evidence, then lay it before the courts. The content of the transripts does not, in my opinion, amount to a fig in relation to accusations of murder.

      3. Mike Sivier Post author

        Are you sure?
        Many people are of the opinion that it amounts to a confession.

      4. Andy

        Then unless you lay the evidence and prove it to be a confession it must remain theory or conjecture regardless of what many people may believe.

      5. Mike Sivier Post author

        It’s not up to me, I’m afraid. The best person to do it would probably be Mr Clapson’s sister, or someone else directly related to a person who has died as a result of a benefit sanction.

      6. Andy

        Yes, I do believe a coroner has cited a benefıt sanction as a contributory factor but not necessarily the main one…and probably insufficient evidence for murder accusations.

      7. Mike Sivier Post author

        The evidence is in his confession on Sunday. He knows people are dying. He knows the deaths follow sanctions authorised by his ministers. He will not change that system. Therefore he wants people to die and is satisfied when they do. Murder.

      8. Leeanne

        Gordon brown sold off britains gold for billions less than it was worth,so if he had not done that we would have more money for benefits so should he be charged as well? No he shouldn’t lol I have never heard so much rubbish as has been posted on here,maybe some of you on here are to blame for not donating to help the ones that are dying!

      9. Mike Sivier Post author

        If Brown had sold that gold at top prices, he’d have made about as much as George Osborne borrows every three months.
        There’s a big difference between deciding to sell a product at a bad time and deciding that it’s okay for people to die if they miss a benefit appointment.
        Perhaps you should reconsider your own priorities.

      10. Leeanne

        Mike there are some people that as you say should not have benefits stopped but there are a awful lot that should and I’m sure David Cameron does not decide who does and who does not

      11. Mike Sivier Post author

        How many should? Tell me what percentage of benefit claimants you think are committing fraud.

      12. Leeanne

        It’s not just fraud it’s also not trying to find work,and it’s not possible to know how many and u know that,but I know plenty that are working cash in hand and also signing on and on the sick and working

      13. Mike Sivier Post author

        Do you indeed?
        I think we’ve all heard that line before.
        The number of people trying to cheat the system is tiny. Be honest – you knew that already.

      14. Mike Sivier Post author

        I’m not naïve at all.
        I’ve done a lot of research on this over the last few years. Read it in the archives of this blog; I know what I’m writing.
        On what do you base YOUR beliefs?

      15. Leeanne

        You have not done your research if calling for David Cameron to be tried for murder or manslaughter or is to blame in the slightest,every claim is meant to be done on merit is he supposed to vet them all? I work in blackpool 1 of the poorest in the country and I would say the vast majority,not all but a lot of seasonal workers are frauding,now a lot of them I don’t blame as it’s the only way they can live,have you researched that?

      16. Mike Sivier Post author

        He said himself that he had examined the cases of those who had died.
        As for your individual cases – how do you know? Have you asked them or do they just look suspicious to you?

      17. Leeanne

        Because there well known for it and I know plenty of people that work in the tourism industry,and can you link where he said he has examined the cases while they were Alive please and not when they were dead

      18. Mike Sivier Post author

        I think you’re trolling now.
        There would have been no point in examining their cases while they were alive. Nobody was ever discussing that.
        The point is that he examined the cases of people who had died – that’s right, DIED – while claiming benefits and after being sanctioned, and had decided that it was perfectly acceptable not only for the sanction to have placed their lives at risk, but for it also to have led to their deaths.
        Stop trying to wriggle out of it; this is what he said to Andrew Marr (although not in quite those words).
        It is impossible to justify a benefit sanction that leads to a person’s death.
        In saying that he was happy to allow the situation to continue, Cameron was saying he is happy for more people to die. This indicates intent for this to happen.

      19. Leeanne

        Your just twisting his words, and can you show me please where the Tories have overspent more than labour did last time they were in office

      20. Mike Sivier Post author

        It’s common knowledge, you can Google it yourself.
        And no, I’m not twisting his words.

      21. Andy

        No, Mike there was no confession.

        What Cameron admitted was that there was a process of application and the need to supply informatıon and to satisfy certain eligibilıty requirements; no one should disagree with that priinciple.

        He confirmed that some people who had been sanctioned had passed away but, of course, lthough he dıdn’t say ıt many who had also been sanctioned had not died. At the same time, although he dıd not say ıt, some who had not been sanctioned also passed away, while some had not. That he did not may well be because of the rude interruptions of Marr but, nevertheless, it is clearly only common sense.

        Death is part of life and I have yet to see any case where it has been officially recorded that the cause of death was sanctions and to say because he won’t change the system and, therefore, he wants people to die and is satısfıed when they do, is really quıte illogıcal.

        Should the govenment stop increasing pensions because death sometimes occurs after the application of the triple lock?

      22. Mike Sivier Post author

        There is a need to satisfy certain eligibility requirements; nobody has disagreed with that. Everybody should disagree with the apparent belief that death is an appropriate punishment for missing an interview at the Job Centre.
        Why don’t you?
        Why are you mentioning people who died when they hadn’t been sanctioned? It is a clear result of his being sanctioned that led to Mr Clapson’s death; he didn’t have any money to pay for electricity to keep his fridge on, so his medicine was spoiled and he couldn’t use it. Anyone whose death was not directly related to a benefit sanction has nothing to do with this.
        My claims are entirely logical and proceed from the statements made by Cameron in his interview. Yours, on the other hand, suggest that you may need psychological help.

      23. Andy

        I do agree Mike but the flaw in your argument is that the penalty for missing an interview is not death but running the risk of being sanctioned. That is why I pointed this out to you by highlighting that there are many who have ben sanctioned who are still aiıve and kicking.

        Mr. Capson’s sad death, and please be assured I am not being callous, was, ı understand, because he suffered from complications in his diabetic condition following failure to take his medicine but there are two rather puzzling aspects to be dealt with.

        Firstly, of course, why did he not keep his interview appointment, especially when he would have been aware of the possible consequences of being sanctioned?

        The second point is why, knowing how vital it was for his medicine to be kept refrigerated did he not, in the two weeks that elapsed before he died, make alternative arrangements wıth friends, neighbours or even the local pharmacy to store it while he resolved his financial problems? Until those points are cleared I am afraid you are blaming the car for knockıng down the man who crossed the road without taking the precaution of lookıng both ways.

        However, thank you for your layman’s diagnosis that suggests to you that I may need psychological help. If you care to let me have the name and address of the specialist psychologıst curently treating you for your problems then I may just take you up on that …….you insolent bu**er

      24. Mike Sivier Post author

        The flaw in your argument is that David Clapson really is dead so, for him, the penalty for missing an interview really was death.

        There are many reasons he could have failed to keep his interview appointment. The Job Centre could have changed it at the last minute; weather or transport problems could have made it impossible for him to get there on time (with an added complication that he would not have been able to notify JC staff of the issue if he had already started out), he could have had a job interview that overran – meaning he could not attend the JC. These have all been used as reasons for sanctioning jobseekers by JC staff.

        I’ve contacted Mr Clapson’s sister to find out the exact details. In any case, I stand by my opinion of you, which shows a similar sociopathic disregard for other people to that displayed by Cameron, Iain Duncan Smith, and most of the rest of the Conservative members of the Coalition Government. Calling me what you did at the end of your comment merely confirms your opinion of yourself as being above the rest of us.

      25. Andy

        Sorry not to respond sooner, Mike, but I believe you, too, are a carer and w,ll appreciate the needs of one’s charge do not always comply with a reguar timetable. It also can take somewhat longer to deal with them when oneself is pensioner of many years standing.

        However, I disagree that Davıd Clapson really being dead is a flaw in my argument. The penalty for missing his interview was to be sanctioned. His death was a sad result of not receiving his medication. What has not been answered are the two points I made before – why did he miss his appointment and what transpired in the fortnight between the sanctıon and his death?

        You have offered some possible explanations given by others for not getting to interviews but the vital question is why did David not attend hıs. Untıl these are answered I remain open minded but reiterate that there is insufficient evidence, thus far at least, to seek to brand anybody a murderer. No Cameron did not admit it on the Marr programme; I think you know that, really.

        Now in my absence from the computer my Inbox has accumulated a consierable number of emails relating to my voluntary work on behalf of half a million UK citizen pensioners, many of them World War Two veterans, whose state retirement pension is not index linked; the disgraceful policy of successive governments. I m still trying to fathom why the government of the day embarked on a ten year case that ended ın the ECHR Grand Chamber in March 2010 opposing uprating, winning on a technicality, then tabling an amendment callıng for the abolition of the inıquitous clause in the Pension Act 2014, only to withdraw it at the Scrutiny stage of the bill.

        Oh, I will ignore your final paragragh; its inappropriateness is self evident.

      26. Mike Sivier Post author

        Fortunately for the sanity of the nation, it seems you have lost this argument and the judgement of readers has fallen in favour of my side of the argument.
        I take it your penultimate paragraph is included as an attempt to validate your point of view. Any work you do on behalf of others in no way supports your argument about Mr Clapson.
        We are not going to see eye-to-eye on this, and you are not going to sway the public. Better call it a day.

  7. wildswimmerpete

    Cameron doesn’t just need voting out of office, it appears that he should join his henchman Duncan Smith in the dock of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

  8. karen vocripps

    Well written and such is the double speak of politicians, it needs to be writen and considered before just about any ordinary person can hope to understnd what they actually say without spin and hype and all the other ‘fuff’ that gets in the way. As i understand it, there is a little known law, its called Parliamentary immunity that means, in essence, they an kill as many of us as they want -so long as its not to overt and attracts the attention of too many as to cause a rumpus in the internetional comunity- and not face prosecution.So as long as there are no death camps, he can do what he likes. tere have been a few rumbles form Europe and a bit from the UN..but nothing serious, I cant see Cameron et al being in the dock at the Haig any time soon.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Parliamentary immunity from criminal prosecution is not enjoyed by Members of Parliament under the Westminster system. This lack of criminal immunity is derived from the key tenet of the British Constitution that all are equal before the law.

  9. Florence

    I too noticed the chilling candor of Cameron. His version is that the system worked as it was designed to do, and that anyone falling foul of this “knew what was coming”. This needs to be submitted to the UN as further evidence of the abuse of human rights by these murderers. No-one should be killed by any government when you get on the wrong side of petty officialdom & punitive rules, they should be protected by the Human Right treaties.

    The UK abolished the death sentence under criminal law. How did the UK come to be passing death sentences for the crime of being poor & vulnerable, delivered by clerical civil servants through a secret quasi judicial system?

  10. Olly Jenkins (@OJenk79)

    I hate Tories, I really hate them. However this argument is totally flawed.

    “It helps if you read the article and the arguments it contains before you respond to the question it poses.”

    I have read this and David Cameron did not admit multiple murders. That is a frankly ludicrous extrapolation from a completely flawed argument.

    “He was unable to receive hardship funds for two weeks. David Cameron thinks that is okay.”

    It is OK – those are the rules and everyone knew them. Why did he fail to turn up to the interview? Could he not have given any notice? It clearly states that if you don’t turn up, you lose benefit and that is fair. You mention nothing about why he didn’t turn up and this is key to your argument.

    If his life depended on it, then he should have taken it slightly more seriously and turned up. Or let them know he wasn’t coming.

    “is it right that people who are asked to turn up for interviews or asked to fill in a CV or asked to apply for a job should have to do those things before getting benefits then yes”

    This is completely correct.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Of course, David Clapson’s sister has been demanding an inquiry into what happened; there are many possibilities that don’t involve any fault on his part. The Job Centre might not have notified him properly that he had an interview that day – or may have notified him of the wrong date and time; it might have changed the date and time at the last minute; he may have been a few minutes late. These are all tricks that DWP representatives have played on other benefit claimants in order to get an easy sanction.
      It isn’t okay that people who are sanctioned unexpectedly cannot claim hardship payments for two weeks. Leaving people to starve – which is what this does – is against the Human Rights Act, which forbids “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Of course, the Tories want to repeal the Human Rights Act, possibly for precisely this reason.
      You have no reason to believe that David Clapson did not intend to attend his interview and we have plenty of evidence of foul play by the DWP’s Job Centre advisers.
      Perhaps you don’t have experience of this flawed and prejudicial system.
      Are you a Conservative, by any chance?

    2. Shaun Gardner

      ‘If his life depended on it’?!!?
      So missing an appointment at the f***ing Job centre now carries the threat of losing your life!!
      Say that out loud and see how it sounds. That someone should even have cause to write such a sentence in DEFENCE of this Coalition, shows what a f***ing horrible place this country as become.

  11. Gee Sunray

    After reading this article I find this government so arrogant, ignorant & hypocrisy . If the they had to go benefits they would have a really hard time. The last 10 years have been horrendous for workers losing most of their rights, having their pay reduced. Only a selfish, heartless worker will vote conservatives.
    I have been long term unemployed. The Tories have not helped they just up tons hurdles in the way to get a job. Things got so bad I had to go bankrupt because no one was offering me job. However someone from oversea got job straight away. (Not I have any thing against people from oversea.If people here in the U.K are giving second best chance on a job. That is not fair and lot of anger is building up.) Now I find because I’m bankrupt thing got a lot Bad. no chance of a job. I really hate the Conservative their job policy is warped let awful lot of job seeker down. Labour are no better they put in half of these policies. I will voting for TUSC.

  12. Olly Jenkins (@OJenk79)

    For someone who complains about others not reading, you missed the very first line of my post which could not have been clearer – “I hate Tories, I really hate them”

    “It isn’t okay that people who are sanctioned unexpectedly cannot claim hardship payments for two weeks.”

    This doesn’t happen randomly or unexpectedly. It happens if they don’t turn up or do what’s expected of them. If you don’t turn up to the interview then it is 100% expected and 100% avoidable. If I don’t turn up for work and they sack me that’s my fault, not my employer’s.

    “You have no reason to believe that David Clapson did not intend to attend his interview”

    He didn’t attend it, though, did he? If he couldn’t get there for ANY reason, then why didn’t he tell them and reschedule it?
    If the Tories ignored a valid reason and he did call them then you’d have a point, but you have 0 evidence of this. As you’re the one shouting “murder” the burden of proof is on you.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      After reading your comment, I didn’t believe the first line.
      Also, you don’t seem to have read my comment properly. The Job Centre advisers can rig the system so that people don’t turn up or do what is expected of them (by not telling them in an appropriate way). This has happened many, many times over the last few years and yes, people have died as a result. That doesn’t happen randomly; it happens as a result of DWP action.
      It has also happened many, many times. Haven’t you heard of Calum’s List? Or what about the 10,600 ESA-related deaths between January and November 2011? We don’t know how many have died since then because the DWP has refused to disclose the information, despite many requests for it under the Freedom of Information Act.
      I’m currently waiting for the Information Commissioner to rule on my latest appeal against a DWP decision not to provide that information. Clearly the government has something to hide.
      I would suggest that you should do a little more research into this – starting on this very blog site, which has a huge wealth of information on it.

      1. Olly Jenkins (@OJenk79)

        “The Job Centre advisers can rig the system so that people don’t turn up or do what is expected of them (by not telling them in an appropriate way).”

        So what shred of proof do you have that this has happened to Clapson? There is none.

        Do you know why he skipped the interview? If not, then you cannot extrapolate anything because you do not have any FACTS. I don’t know either, but I admit this and I am not accusing anybody of murder. If I was, I would need evidence.

        If you found out that he deliberately did not attend, would that change any of your opinions?

        There is not a lawyer or policeman alive who would entertain these charges without evidence. You have no actual evidence. I’m not being weird or Tory or elitist or any of the things that you have instantly assumed I am just because I disagreed with you.

        As for me being a Tory… mate, you read my answer, saw that I disagreed and then decided I must be a Tory.
        I am humanitarian and libertarian, but I disagree with your logical method because it is flawed.
        That doesn’t mean I’m weird or horrible or Tory or elitist, it means your logic is flawed and forms no basis for anything in our justice system.

        You are actually accusing without real evidence, refusing a fair discussion and smearing your opponents. You are suggesting we convict Cameron of murder based on no evidence or anything that would stand up within a fair, democratic justice system. Sounds like you’re the Tory, mate.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        Bear in mind that we’re not just discussing David Clapson; this has happened to thousands of people. You really do need to do some background reading.

        I didn’t decide you must be a Tory; I questioned your assertion. I see you count yourself as a libertarian – that explains a lot. No, it doesn’t mean my logic is flawed.

        I’m accusing because what Cameron said amounts to a confession.

      3. Olly Jenkins (@OJenk79)

        We are not just discussing Clapson, but we are discussing him. He is part of what you are discussing. He is the focal point of your article about murder.

        You brought him up specifically as an example of murder
        Under the tiniest scrutiny, you have 0 evidence for this
        When challeneged, you say “oh yes but there are 1000s of others” again without providing evidence.

        “Read more” – I read plenty, all the time. I’m not asking because I don’t know, or bc I don’t read, I’m asking you because you are the one claiming you’ve found a murderer.
        Listen Mike, if you are making accusations then the burden of proof is on you to prove them, not me to research them for you.

        You also seem to think that people don’t need to be interviewed, verified or tested to receive any kind of benefit. Are you seriously suggesting we should just give money out to people on an honor principle? How are we supposed to assess them if they don’t turn up for interviews?

        Cameron’s words do not amount to a confession, and there is not a court or policeman in the world who would agree with you. Simply, because your assertion that he has confessed to multiple murders is delusional at best, and your responses reek of the fanatical.

      4. Mike Sivier Post author

        No – Andrew Marr brought him up, specifically as an example of a benefit claimant who died because the system, as altered by the Conservative-led government, would not allow him to live.
        The evidence is as I described it. You just don’t like it, so you are trying to pick holes in it.
        Unfortunately for you, there are plenty of readers here who know the score and are quite happy to fill you in on what has been happening.
        By all means carry on commenting, but be aware that you are merely demonstrating your own ignorance.

    2. AM-FM

      Dear Me, Olly Jenkins, where’ve you been for the last 4 or 5 years.

      “If you don’t turn up to the interview then it is 100% expected and 100% avoidable.”

      Bear in mind that most people claiming benefits have worked in the past, sometimes for decades, and so are well capable of just ‘attending a meeting’, if it was that easy then the number of sanctions would be near zero wouldn’t they, and not nearer a million.

      Do you really think people are risking and getting 1 month, 3 month, and 3 year sanctions because they just can’t be bothered ‘attending a meeting’ at the JC?

      I can tell you from personal experience, in among the pointless, time and tax-payer money wasting tasks you have to do, it’s near impossible to “follow the rules” because the rules keep changing, sometimes from signing to signing.

      Sanctions aren’t designed to help people into work, employers are already deluged with CVs, they’re designed to lower the claimant count, and destroy the pay and conditions of everybody, including you.

  13. Olly Jenkins (@OJenk79)

    “There [are] lots of these cases as you won’t have a review. You should have a review of the system surely?”

    This I agree with, but so does Cameron.

    “I look at all of those individual cases and all of those cases can be addressed by the hardship funds and by the flexibilities that are there in the system. But we have sanctions for a reason…”

    At this point he is cut off. We do have sanctions for a reason – so people don’t abuse the system – and we should have them.Sanctions without consequences are useless.

    Also, there was an overhaul of benefits, there was a review of the system and everyone accused the Tories of hitting out against people on benefits and being even more bigoted. Tories slash benefits! Kick in the teeth to disabled people! etc. etc.

    I really hate Cameron and I really want to see him burn but this in not the situation for it.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Cameron doesn’t want a review. His government has done everything it could to avoid one. That’s why it hasn’t happened.

    2. lallygag26

      Olly’s position is untenable simply on the question of disproportionate response. The application of sanctions is not validated by the person sanctioned knowing that the sanction was a likely result of non compliance with the rules. Not if there’s the slightest possibility it will end in their death. It’s the rules themselves that are wrong.

      People on benefits have an income so marginal that getting through to the end of the week is difficult. Removing even a day’s money produces hardship. When so many people die of hunger, of an inability to keep their fridge turned on so their medication can’t be preserved, commit suicide because they know they will lose, or have lost, their homes, or freeze to death in the street it is not, under any circumstances, acceptable to say ‘I’ll look at individual cases’. Because by the time you’ve done that, it’s already too late. And a dead person doesn’t need their case reviewing. And their relatives sure as hell don’t need to be told their dead son or grandmother ‘knew the rules’.

      The benefit system is designed to stop people falling into degradation, not push them into it.

      Whether or not the interview is a confession to multiple murder, it shows without question a man lacking in proper compassion for his fellow human beings, for whom their deaths is a simple matter of them not following the appropriate rules.

      Personally I don’t care if some people scam the benefits system. If the system as a whole protects people’s dignity, then I’ll accept a few chancers in the mix. We have fraud detection systems designed to sort anyone out who is genuinely milking it (they are very few in number and the cost is tiny). That seems to me a price worth paying to save lives.

      The idea has been planted in our public consciousness that poverty is a lifestyle choice, benefit claimants living a life of ease, or even excess, at the expense of others. We describe ‘worklessness’ as a moral crime and ‘incapacity’ as the scam of choice for the lazy. It is an indescribable cruelty to do so.

      Where, though, are the jail sentences handed out to the bankers whose actions destroyed the livelihood and wellbeing of millions around the globe…..? Where is the moral outcry against those whose reckless gambling creates these distortions in our economy in the first place? Nowhere, because we are too busy condemning the man with mental health problems who misses an interview at the job centre. And we have people agreeing with the judgements of the Prime Minister who presided over his death ‘because those were the rules’.

      I find it incomprehensible and reprehensible.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        It’s reminiscent of the saying about innocent people going to prison, isn’t it – better a hundred guilty people go free than a single innocent go to jail (or something similar).
        Cameron would rather let the innocent die, it seems.

  14. Jeff Higgins

    This isn’t helpful at all. I’ve looked at the transcript and I can find no mention of the word food let alone food bank. I can’t find Trussel Trust either, it wasn’t mentioned in the video of it I watched either.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      You mean this section:

      AM: What about the million people depending on food banks?

      DC: Well obviously I want a country where people don’t depend on food banks, we did something-

      AM: But why are more people depending on food banks?

      DC: One of the things we did was that Labour – because they didn’t like the PR of this – they didn’t advertise or promote the existence of food banks through job centres. We changed that because we thought that was, that was basically sort of selfish and shortminded…

      AM: And according to the Trussell Trust, who run these banks, that accounts for just three per cent of people using food banks at the moment so it’s not a significant thing.

      It was definitely in the video because I watched the Marr Show to confirm what was in the transcript before I wrote the article.

  15. Jim Round

    I have said many times that the lack of support is a disgrace, right-on people will say “it’s up to the individual” but I have first-hand knowledge that some need a bit of extra help, the party that successfully tackles this is onto a winner, with me personally anyway.

  16. Timro

    Ed Miliband will be guilty of the same crimes if he becomes Prime Minister and Rachel Reeves doesn’t do something about the cruel sanctions regime instituted by Iain Duncan Smith and David Freud. But will she? Will the woman who promised to be tougher on welfare than the Tories somehow be more merciful and humane than the Tories? I haven’t heard anything from Labour to give me confidence that it would.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Please don’t repeat that silliness about Rachel Reeves again. It has been explained; she said she would be tougher on the causes of welfare – the situations that force people out of work and onto the dole queue. That was clarified within days of the interview and yet people like yourself still cling to this shred of a claim that she’s one of the baddies.

      THAT BEING SAID… If she does not change the system, she and Ed will indeed be guilty of the same crimes.

      1. Timro

        People are getting sanctioned without knowing what they have done wrong and only find out when a letter drops through their doors.

        This isn’t fair or proportionate.

        One basic change they ought to make is to have a red card system where people are given, say, three warnings and a chance to pull their sock up before being sanctioned, so at least they know they are breaking the rules before suffering a penalty, and fairer penalties too! No one should lose a month’s benefits for missing one interview or suffer any penalties unless their recalcitrant and uncooperative behaviour is persistent.

  17. Pete B.

    Job Centres have completely changed under Dave the Spiv’s leadership,or lack of.Lets not forget he wanted to move Mr Incompetence and Compassion-less IDS.The Underpants claimant. But IDS said no and CMD caved in as usual.

    Job centres no longer give full guidance on what you can claim,they make it has hard as possible for a claimant to find out what they are entitled to.

    Foodbank,s have grown substantially under Dave the Spiv’s watch.Under Labour they were mostly used for immigrants and the dispossessed.But CMD has no worries about his own countrymen being dispossessed.Let them starve and die,or be found fit for work only to die a little later.

    He is a charlatan,how many times has he used his dead son Ivan,s name.That often that even I know it without looking it up.CMD would use anyone and anything for a PR stunt.Shallow Dave,not a has been,more a never was.

    Tories.Lower than Vermin.Get them out,and keep them out.People die to frequently on their watch.

  18. Groc

    To add to the charge of corporate manslaughter or murder – whatever you’d like to call it. The DWP have know very well for years the ‘reforms’ would lead to an increase in vulnerable people committing suicide.

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/20/jobcentre-supervisors-suicide-risk-benefit-claimants

    The reforms went ahead – the warnings went unheeded. Claimant advisors weren’t sympathetic or sensitive. (There’s no way of that anyway, not when you’re cutting off people’s only source of income.) People have killed themselves.

    This is obviously acceptable to the DWP and to this government. One death should have led to a pause in the reforms while an internal review was carried out. But it’s taken another 60 deaths (although there’s likely to have been many, many more) before they could be bothered to have an review behind closed doors with the public shut out of their findings. The ‘reforms’ have continued.

    I’ll just also point out that in the criminal justice system prisons aren’t allowed to deny convicted criminals food – not even when they’ve committed the most heinous of crimes. But we now live in a society where our government deems it totally acceptable to do just that to the unemployed just for the most trivial of reasons, like being late for a meeting, or not being able to be at two places at the same time etc.

  19. Nick

    My take is that David Cameron showed no concern whatsoever for those sick and disabled that have died in going through welfare reform

    He has failed to even understand the basics in that a sick person long term will also have a mental condition as well and will not be able to grasp the fact that a council may or may not be in a position to help

    From my experiences with councils over many years it would be completely pot luck if you got help with any type of fund off your own back

    help with regards any type of hardship fund would need a lot of hard work to achieve and certainly out of the remit of a sick person with an additional mental health problem

    If we had a legal system then that would be a different matter but we don’t all we have is the likes of myself helping others in a similar position to myself and the offering of the best advice that i can when asked to do so

    many may say i’m a life saver and for them they may be true but the reality is that many that ask for advice on welfare from the likes of myself go onto die because we don’t have the legal training on how welfare documents being returned to the DWP should be worded hence the main reason why claimants are found fit for work but aren’t

    1. joanna may

      I know about the council thing, when I moved on medical grounds, I applied for a fridge/freezer only to be told NO because I am not type 1 diabetic, I am however type 2 and I was told a cooker and a washing machine are luxuries! There are not any launderettes where I live and I am riddled with osteo-arthritis and I have no family anywhere. At least under labour there was a very good quality of life for all, look at Remploy!

      1. Leeanne

        While I am sorry for your case as it’s obviously wrong,the problem with labour yes you and me were better off but they were spending money that they didn’t have hence all the cuts now

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        The Tory-led Coalition government has overspent more money than Labour ever borrowed in all its terms in government.
        That’s money that the Tories didn’t have.
        Furthermore, their ‘austerity’ cuts have crippled the economy, making it impossible to pay back the money from tax receipts – and this was the Conservative Party’s plan all along.
        The aim was to cut public services (shrink the state) while making it possible for Tory Party donors to benefit (thus placing an obligation on those donors to give more money to the Conservatives) – all under the pretence that it was necessary to pay off the debts.
        This is all common knowledge – or should be.

  20. Nick

    the bottom line is we as a country should be looking for someone like myself to be the prime minister someone who not only understands life but the fine detail that makes life worthwhile for everyone to enjoy to it’s fullest

  21. anon

    Looking at many such deaths, such as that of Stephanie Bottrill, where coroners have ruled that a suicide was benefit-related, WHEN has there ever been a situation in the UK where citizens have routinely taken their own lives because a GOVERNMENT POLICY has rendered those lives no longer worth living?

  22. Helen young

    DC makes me ashamed to be part of humanity that he represents especially when he used his son for political gains makes me want to vomit

  23. John Griffin

    These sanctions are not Just affecting the people who have their benefits stopped ,they stopped my sons money for 3 months after he had 2 seven hour operations to clear blood clots in both his legs ,he is still in pain when walking and cannot stand for long .We as his perents had to lend him £400 to see him over this period which he said he would repay,however at the tribunal they said he was able to work as a security guard and therefore he wasn’t refunded . My wife and I are pensioners and are now £400 out of pocket due to the tory policies .Thanks Camoron and IDS.

  24. thelovelywibblywobblyoldlady

    To Olly Jenkins – The current benefits system headed by IDS and overseen by CaMORON, treats vulnerable and unwell people in the most appalling way.That’s not just me saying it; this report says it too …

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmworpen/814/814.pdf.

    This report was published on 24th March 2015; before the Andrew Marr interview, so CaMORON knew or ought to have known about it.

    It is most certainly NOT OK for people to wait 2 weeks for hardship funds, even criminals who have committed murder don’t go without food, heat and light as punishment. There’d be riots on the scale of Strangeways if the prison system tried that one.

    Access to food is a basic right, again, that’s not just me saying that, you can read more about that here;

    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/FoodIndex.aspx

  25. stevecheneysindieopinions4u

    To be fair, I think it’s more likely that Cameron just lied about reviewing all these cases personally. I’d be shocked if he did, frankly, given how many there are and his apparent indifference to the subject up until now.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Still, he said it. If he’ll lie about that, what else is he lying about?
      And those people are still dead.

  26. Lynn Dye

    Another great article, Mike. I totally agree that there should have been risk assessments and the government knew what it was doing, and did not care about the lives lost.

    It also looks like Cameron was about to repeat the same 900,000 falsehood that IDS was rebuked for years ago. I wonder whether he actually managed to repeat it all in its entirety during the show?

  27. Leeanne

    Mike I have never heard so much rubbish come out of anyone’s mouth as yours,I don’t even think what you write is true,while these cases are very sad you don’t actually no the full details of them and are just guessing

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      You haven’t heard anything come out of my mouth. This is a written medium.

    2. Cummacroppa

      Folk like you only believe it when it happens to them, just because your obviously uninformed doesn’t mean everyone else is.

  28. sibrydionmawr

    Simply put, all sanctions are unacceptable. It’s true that there are people who will just claim from the state, but they are so few in number that they are insignificant. Let’s not forget that it was largely the Tories, (and not forgetting Labour under Blair) who wrecked large parts of the economy. I don’t argue that there was no need for change, there most certainly was, but no part of UK industry was beyond modernisation. It’s destruction was driven purely by ideology, which of course, couldn’t be completed until the unions, in the shape of the most powerful, the NUM were thoroughly beaten by Thatcher in 1985. Once the miners were beaten, the war was won by Thatcher, and the Left set descended into internecine warfare. People expected great things from Labour’s 1997 landslide victory, instead they got Blairism, a slightly more humane form of Thatcherism.

    What Milibandism consists of, we don’t yet really know. We have the manifesto, but those kinds of things usually promise you the moon, but anyone would be over optimistic to believe that they’d actually get the moon!

    I think we will probably have Miliband as our next Prime Minister, but I hope he has the gumption and the courage to ensure that should evidence come to light (i.e. that it is actively sought out) that Cameron and IDS are culpable in all the deaths, that they are tried at the Old Bailey, (or wherever appropriate). I’d also expect whoever takes over from IDS at the DWP abolishes the whole sanctions system as it presently exists.

    Certainly, have the sanctions system as it existed circa 1975 (virtually impossible to get a sanction – they were unheard of, though theoretically existed), but we need no more than to require someone to be available for work and unemployed. Heck, in those days, even the ‘sanction’ for leaving a job voluntarily was only a fortnight. rather than the present six months!

    If the incoming government forgets the hype about reducing the defecit, and playing according to Tory rules, and as a result invests in the economy in a serious way, investing in R&D, investing in the re-establishment of manufacturing and construction, and, crucially, investing seriously in people so that the needed skills are present in the workforce then there would be a real prospect of the economy returning to health, increases in pay, and as a concomitant, an increased tax take for the government to invest in education, the NHS, more R&D and more training.

    Miliband might have to do something along these lines anyway. He no doubt hates the idea, but he’s going to rely on the case by case support of a certain Scottish party to govern, and maybe also a certain Welsh party and a certain environmentally orientated party as well.

    The alternative is a minority Tory government, and if Miliband allows that, then Labour really will be finished as a potential government – heck, Labour may even be ousted from their fiefdom of Wales… that would be a shock – they’ve ruled in Wales for longer than the CPSU did in the Soviet Union!

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Miliband’s manifesto doesn’t promise the moon. He said himself that he wanted to be the Prime Minister who promised less but delivered more.
      I certainly agree with you on the subject of the benefit deaths. Labour would abolish sanctions, if elected.
      Labour does intend to invest in building up the economy, also.
      A minority Tory government wouldn’t get very far as its worst excesses would be blocked. In fact, it probably wouldn’t get a Queen’s Speech past a mostly-anti-Tory Commons.

      1. Leeanne

        If labour go hand in hand with the snp yes they will get in,but will last till the next general election and not get in again for 20 years

      2. sibrydionmawr

        Sligthly off-topic, but I came accross this very interesting piece that could be very useful to anyone who is still on JSA, and facing the sanctions regime. It seems that IDS and the DWP have been playing a little fast and loose with what they demand from claimants in terms of jobsearch requirements, and sanctioning people who don’t fulfill every requirement on the Jobseeker’s Agreement, or Claimaint’s Committment.

        It seems that when it comes to a legal test, only the actual law itself has any clout, and it’s currently the Jobseeker’s Act 1995, which only requires that more than 2 steps each week are required. The devil is in the detail a bit, as you’d have to know this in order to challenge a sanction. You can find more information here:

        http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/ask-cpag-online-how-can-you-avoid-jsa-actively-seeking-work-sanction

        Most unemployed people are still claiming JSA, so there is scope to massively challenge the number of sanctions using this knowledge

  29. joanna may

    Leeanne putting it very simplistic, Remploy factories employing hundreds of disabled people=income tax receipts, the coalition closing them all down = no income tax receipts and lots more spending on benefits which would have been avoidable had the factories stayed open, because if I understand it correctly Remploy were becoming very much trusted among big businesses. The Human cost is incalculable, many already having lost the will to live!! Is that any way to run a country? I would rather a future leader spend money which could have a positive effect on finances, as Mike has pointed out if you spend money to create jobs then there is income tax which can then be ploughed back into creating a better life for all, not just the rich.

    1. Leeanne

      You might well be right my argument is mike making ridiculas comments that Cameron should be tried for murder or manslaughter or that he basically admitted it

    2. Andy

      Accordıng to theır websıte. Remploy has not closed down – wıth effect from 7th Aprıl the 60 branches became a joınt venture between Maxımus and 30% of ıf the employees..

  30. marionfallon1961

    Leeanne is clearly a troll, they tend to be pretty dim (that’s being generous) and don’t have facts or much of a grip on reality. The mere fact that they are prepared to argue and score points, on such a serious matter, gives you all the evidence you need Mike, ignore her/him.

Comments are closed.