DWP death statistics lack accuracy, logic or consistency
Distortion With Prejudice: Will we ever get FACTS from the Department for Work and Pensions – or just more spin and spiel?
Problems in interpreting the DWP’s August 27 release of mortality statistics for claimants of incapacity benefit may be due to the government department’s failure to record its information in any reasonable manner, according to the Information Commission.
A solicitor for the Information Commissioner’s Office said this could be the case in response to concerns raised by Yr Obdt Srvt about the fudged statistics the DWP offered in response to my Freedom of Information request, sent on May 28 last year.
The comment raises serious concerns about the usefulness of the Freedom of Information Act, as it implies that any public authorities could discharge its duties by recording nonsense and publishing it as fact.
In her email, the solicitor (who will go unnamed to prevent embarrassment) wrote: “The [FOI] Act is only concerned with recorded information and not whether the information which is recorded is accurate, logical or consistent with other information.
“Where any recorded information appears to be inaccurate, illogical or inconsistent with other published information, it may be desirable for a public authority to provide an explanatory not to accompany the disclosure but neither the Act nor the material decision notice compel the DWP to provide such accompanying explanation.”
In other words, anything that has been published by the Department for Work and Pensions – regarding this or any other statistical information – may be untrue.
A prime example of this is in the DWP’s claims regarding the total number of deaths in its document Mortality Statistics: Employment and Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance’, in which death figures per year for 2009-2013 are provided for the total incapacity benefits population but also separately for the ESA and IB/SDA populations. If the separate totals are added together, than the sum is greater – every year – than the number claimed for the population as a whole.
This writer does not accept that any benefit claimant can die twice.
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated 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:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Hum once again it seems dwp are hiding facts away ftom sight less the true figures ever come out they now goose cooked
It annoys me how one criminal fraudulently claiming social security (for which they are consequently prosecuted) generates outctry, but the genuinely sick spending their deathbeds in the dole queue, causes hardly anyone to bat an eyelid.
I wouldn’t put it past the DWP to tamper with the criteria for being considered dead (you may think I’m joking, but you know I’m not :( )
The point is the deaths statistics published thus far are very much the tip of the iceberg, not only because so many stats are missing, but other stats like what happens to the 22% of those found fit for work and who disappear from view not on any benefit or in work are not even collected or investigated.
I get ridiculed on some forums when I state I suspect the death toll due to “welfare reforms” since May 2010 is 600000.
(I did not pluck that figure out of thin air, I used the governments own data and commissioned research by Sheffield Hallam University to come to that conclusion.)
None of those who ridicule me has proven me wrong thus far.)
the bottom line is mike is that the press releases of the many thousands that have died over the past few years are all on record and all involve the DWP along with their agents with the relatives of the deceased all citing negligence on the deaths of their spouses/ partners/ friends etc
Any judge would agree with me as being a fair summing up
What we don’t know is that what circumstances led up to these deaths
were the DWP just negligent ?
were the DWP out to cause malice knowing that by targeting certain types of people that they would end their own lives
did the claimant fill the forms out incorrectly ?
did the claimant fill the forms in and mis the deadline ?
did the claimant live alone and was unsure of procedure owing to poor mental health on his or her next move with regards the DWP?
was the claimant to ill at the time to fill the forms in ?
Did all the main line charities fail to help the claimant fill in the DWP forms ?
( where i live none of the charities do home visits )
Did the DWP send out to many letters which overburden the claimant into a panic attack
This is just a few scenarios that i personally know of and it will still take years for the official criminal proceeding to take place subject the the prime minister at the time intervention
Just tried to post on Facebook – this is what happened ???
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/09/16/dwp-death-statistics-lack-accuracy-logic-or-consistency/
DWP death statistics lack accuracy, logic or consistency
You can’t post this because it has a blocked link
The content you’re trying to share includes a link that our security systems detected to be unsafe: [REMOVED]
Please remove this link to continue.
If you think you’re seeing this by mistake, please let us know.
Strangely, it seems the problem was the link IN YOUR COMMENT that I’ve had to remove (see the bit saying [REMOVED]).
Then you made the comment, adding the link to the article. I should have realised you’d included the dodgy link in the comment and removed it but human error can even get to me.
If a website is saying a link is dodgy, please don’t include it in a comment!
Please will any of you, using the Freedom of Information Act, ask IDS to confirm or deny that ESA regulation 29 places a claimant in the Support Group.
He cannot dodge this question and will not lie.
ESA regulation 29 is the “causal link not found”. . ESA regulation 29 is the ” fundamental flaw” which took IDS four years to spot!
The House of Commons briefings have misinformed and mislead everyone and the full regulations have not yet been published online.
Clarify this fact to understand the injustice suffered by so many of us found fit for work. I need help to do this because of my limited abilities and online access. Thank you everybody.
Sorry Mike, did not understand how this works. However, the link is what came up when I opened your post so I could repost on FB. I am not technical, but that is often how I repost to FB usually. Will be careful fro m now on x
Whatever happened to you, it strikes me as very strange. I can’t offer any suggestions about it at all.
Did anyone think that they’d actually would print the true figures, if they did then people who don’t give a s**t about the way the poor and sick of our country are being treated that even they would be shocked, disgusted and outraged by what IDS is doing and the more people know the truth, the more his job is untenable!