I Daniel Blake

[Rowls]

That would work - let's follow someone who we know is going to die in a few months...you're barmy mate. Obviously it had to be done the way that it was.

You could just follow some benefit claimants though couldn't you?

The only problem with doing this is that you either get an exceedingly dull story about how the benefit system can work rather well or you end up with a criminal like "White Dee".

Does anyone who mistakenly believes that the Ken Loach fiction genuinely represents how the benefit system works want to explain what appeal procedure his eponymous fictional character undertook?

[Papabendi]

What am I looking at here, it proves nothing.

[Rowls]

You have lost all credibility posting that Toby Young article Rowls. It is well known what a tool that guy is.

He's one of the foremost journalists of his generation, writes for the Spectator and has established the very successful state-funded West London Free School.

I'm happy to rest my reputation against his article there. He says it's a well made film that doesn't reflect reality.

[Chobulous]

Let me say first of all that I am not one of the believers in "all people on benefits are feckless scroungers", nor do I generally agree with much that Rowls espouses. That said, the article most recently referenced regarding the number dying following being found fit for work is "probably" intentionally misleading. The author is trying to show a link between those sad deaths and the fact that the people who died were found fit for work but provides no evidence other than the undeniable facts that they are dead and were found fit for work. Where is the causal link? Did those unfortunate people die from the condition which they claimed made them unfit for work? Did they take their own lives in despair? Were they involved in accidents? How did they die?

If there is a causal link show is, with evidence, what it is. Journalism of this type is nothing more than exploitative of other people's misery.

[Papabendi]

Rowls - try reading the account of someone who worked in this 'system'. He knows more than either of us.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ays-doctor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rowls]

What am I looking at here, it proves nothing.

Then you haven't understood it.

It proves that the figures that were used for the Guardian article you linked are worthless because there is nothing to compare them against.

[Papabendi]

It also proves that you haven't understood it either.

[Rowls]

Rowls - try reading the account of someone who worked in this 'system'. He knows more than either of us.

From the article:

"The doctor acknowledged improvements to the scheme"

"The DWP said that the scheme had been improved following consultation with mental health experts and charities."

"Maximus said all staff had training in how to recognise how a person’s mental health impacted upon their ability to work. He said: “Our doctors, therapists and nurses are responsible for carrying out functional assessments, which are not clinical psychiatric assessments. While it is not our role to diagnose someone’s mental health, we know how important it is to understand it in the context of an individual’s functional capability.” "

"the company had more than doubled the number of mental health experts to help assessors."

"A DWP spokesman said: “We are committed to ensuring people get the right support they need – a high quality and fair assessment is key to this. The work capability assessment has been strengthened following five independent reviews, and this includes the way mental health is assessed.” "

You do understand that for well over 30 years, there was absolutely NO proper or robust system of sending people claiming to be sick to claim benefits for medicals don't you?

This is something new. It's going to take a bit of time to get right.

But the choice is this: We either take the time to get it right or we go back to not bothering to check that people getting benefits for being sick are actually sick at all.

Having worked in welfare for 7 years I know it's long overdue that people claiming to be sick were asked to attend medical assessments. One article from an ex-employee saying there were teething difficulties isn't going to stop me believing that.

And you still haven't found a real life Daniel Blake.

Keep trying.

[Rowls]

It also proves that you haven't understood it either.

Nope. Confident I understood it well enough.

[Papabendi]

teething difficulties

Right.

[Rowls]

Right.

Yes, that's right. You find a national benefit system that was set up perfectly on day one.

[Papabendi]

Always imperfect, but also very badly wrong in a number of areas.

[bfccrazy]

With the tit for tat on here it amazes me the opinions and views gathered.

I have had family members and family friends affected by this change and I can honestly say that the way people are treated is horrible. I watched the film the other night with my old man and he just kept saying "but.... That's what happened to me".

He was told by specialist Drs and nurses and people above the pay grades at the DWP that he was unfit for work. He had worked 2/3 jobs at a time for the previous 40 years and once declared medically unfit to work he then was told to apply for help.

This then led to every bit of his life being dissected (both private and financial) and then he was left with absolutely no money for around 13/14 months. We chipped in and made sure he was well and had everything he needed. The thing that made him laugh was that whenever he had appointments with specialists he was told he needed a certain diet and to do lots of things to which his only response was "how do I do that if I have not had a penny for the last year".

He finally (as referenced in the film) just gave up with the games played with him and just opted for early retirement instead. His biggest gripe was/is that after 40 years of paying his taxes and never shying away from an honest day's work.... He was treated like an animal and made to feel subhuman by people telling him to click here or call there. He felt they preyed on the pride and working mentality of his generation to belittle people into feeling inferior and almost as if it was targeted at the bourgeoisie populous who they knew wanted to work but couldn't.

You might think that the film is not an honest portrayal of people in this situation but I know first hand that it is happening closer to home than most people think.

(I know of other people that this has affected if you fancy a sit down and to hear the reality of th situation with them - rather than picking apart statistics).

[Rowls]

This then led to every bit of his life being dissected (both private and financial) and then he was left with absolutely no money for around 13/14 months.

Unfortunately, the nature of means-tested benefits will always result in them dissecting your life in this way. However, a claim should never take anywhere near this long to process.

He finally (as referenced in the film) just gave up with the games played with him and just opted for early retirement instead.

It's good that he had this option and it is better for society that as many people as possible look after themselves in this way as your relative has.

His biggest gripe was/is that after 40 years of paying his taxes and never shying away from an honest day's work.... He was treated like an animal and made to feel subhuman by people telling him to click here or call there. He felt they preyed on the pride and working mentality of his generation to belittle people into feeling inferior and almost as if it was targeted at the bourgeoisie populous who they knew wanted to work but couldn't.

This is the most common complaint and it's one that has some justification. However, the problem is that so many are are (or have been) using the welfare system as a means of permanent income and as a lifestyle. When that happens we all start to have a creeping sense of "entitlement" - after all, if so-and-so is constantly getting free money and free rent why on earth shouldn't we also benefit? It's a fair question and one we've all asked ourselves. However, when it comes to welfare (as opposed to the State Pension) entitlement does not equate to having paid into the system - entitlement is based on assessment and whether you meet the qualifying criteria.

The problem is certainly NOT people like your relative but rather the large minority who use welfare as a lifestyle choice. When you have such a difficult to shift social group who are determined to live on benefits and you engender the idea that if you've paid in you must somehow be entitled to claim then you are in trouble because the costs become prohibitive. Not to mention the costs of supporting a workless underclass and the myriad of social problems such dependent people create.

You might think that the film is not an honest portrayal of people in this situation but I know first hand that it is happening closer to home than most people think.

The presented facts of the story presented of Daniel Blake are dishonest. It shows no appeals process. The character is not representative of benefit claimants as a whole - it never *could* be but that just highlights the political nature of the chosen representation. If, for example, I were to claim that "White Dee" was an accurate portrayal of all benefit claimants that would be equally dishonest.

"White Dee" is representative of the hardcore minority of benefit claimants for whom welfare has become a way of life. She is, however, a real person.

Daniel Blake is representative of a smaller minority of benefit claimants, attempting to use welfare how it was intended (like your relative). Daniel Blake, however, is a fictional character and although certain aspects of his situation may "ring true", the way in which his benefits are processed is completely dishonest and an utter fabrication.

Nobody ought to claim that the government reforms have been a complete success. They have been extremely difficult to achieve and the successes they HAVE achieved (the small matter of 2 million extra jobs) have been hard-fought with many, many problems on the way. That is to be expected - The benefit system is an awful monolith and dependence on welfare for our underclasses has been entrenched in our society for generations now.

But if welfare reforms are not brought about we will have millions more "White Dees" and would go back to having no way of knowing whether people were genuinely sick or just couldn't be bothered to work. How could such a system as that ever be described as "moral"?

A system like that is socially unacceptable and financially ruinous.

If any of you think that staking the political battleground on Loach and Corbyn's defence of the old "no medicals" benefit system then you will find yourself well-defeated when the next GE comes around.

[bfccrazy]

Some very fair points made. The feeling of the means tested benefit system being a good thing are not in question. I think the striking thing for those people genuinely affected and in need of help is that the people deciding on the outcomes are generally going against what medical professionals are saying.

If you went to a Dr and got told that you're incapable of working..... Then got told by somebody who was not medically qualified that because you could tie your shoelaces that you could work. It'd leave a sour taste.

Luckily we're not in this position ourselves and we can earn a crust without worrying about it affecting us (and hopefully it never will) which I think puts blinkers on people. I also see your point of it being needed to weed out those folk that are abusing the system but the point being made by many on here and others is that yes, a stringent system is needed..... BUT ... It should not be to the detriment of those folk that require help and don't score enough points on a quiz to pay for it by meaning less people will make fraudulent claims.

The benefits system in this country across the board is amazing - but just because some people will get caught in "friendly fire" does not make it right. With the amount of people across the country who passed comments on the Daniel Blake film likening it to situations which they were familiar with, I'd say that there are enough people out there who have had a negative experience of the system to warrant some sort of added criteria or a reform of the appeals process.

[Papabendi]

The presented facts of the story presented of Daniel Blake are dishonest. It shows no appeals process.

The appeals process is the very thing the film leads up to. Have you actually watched it or are you just making things up.

[Sidney1st]

A lot of it is knowing how to play the system.

My (ex) wife was delcared fit to work because she could operate a door handle, so by that logic she could do till work or something similar.

There are different variations of course as to why people are declared fit to work, but if you can bend down to tie your shoelaces surely there is a job you can do somewhere?

I have a rotated pelvis & curvature of the spine meaning my legs are very slightly different heights ( about half an inch I think), resulting in my back muscles being under more pressure one side then the other, but I'm only off work when it all goes bang back there.
I used to know someone who claimed to have similar issues but was off work whenever she felt like it and constantly trying to get signed off.


As for x amount of people dying when they've been declared fit for work, are there any figures showing how many 'unfit for work' people have died in the same period, or doesn't that suit the agenda?


The whole system needs overhauling, from the training/suitability of the staff to the medical inspections to prove benefits are required to cracking down on fraudulent claims.
The whole lot needs sorting because the current system is crap, but as with the NHS all governments tend to do is use it for political football instead of dealing with the issues.

[Rowls]

Some very fair points made. The feeling of the means tested benefit system being a good thing are not in question. I think the striking thing for those people genuinely affected and in need of help is that the people deciding on the outcomes are generally going against what medical professionals are saying.

If you went to a Dr and got told that you're incapable of working..... Then got told by somebody who was not medically qualified that because you could tie your shoelaces that you could work. It'd leave a sour taste.

Naturally and here there isn't enough cooperation between the medical profession and the welfare system.

There is a massive difference between being "signed off" by a GP and being passed "fit for work" by a clinician working for the welfare system. Let's take Steven Defour as an example - and NHS GP would happily sign him off with a pulled muscle because he is unable to do his job as a footballer. The GP has done their job and Defour obviously cannot complete his job with a pulled muscle.

But would you allow somebody to phone in sick for an office job with a pulled muscle? No. You would (hopefully) be extremely accommodating and look into their workload ensuring that they didn't have to do much walking but they would reasonably be expected to fulfill their duties.

That, albeit extreme example, demonstrates the difference between being signed of "sick" by a GP and completing a work assessment which is designed to see if you are capable of doing *some* work.

The old system relied purely on GP's sicknotes. I saw people signed off for years and receive years and years of benefits paid for by tax-payers for relatively minor ailments when they could have been working.

The benefits system in this country across the board is amazing - but just because some people will get caught in "friendly fire" does not make it right. With the amount of people across the country who passed comments on the Daniel Blake film likening it to situations which they were familiar with, I'd say that there are enough people out there who have had a negative experience of the system to warrant some sort of added criteria or a reform of the appeals process.

I genuinely do not believe there are any "real Daniel Blakes" because the film does not bare proper resemblance to proper benefit procedures.

What would happen in reality is that Daniel Blake would appeal the decision and, if he had no savings or separate income, he would still be entitled to JSA (instead of ESA) and the terms of his attendance to the Job Centre would be agreed with a benefits officer.

A benefits officer is essentially the same job as I used to to. It appears (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) that they can set discretionary conditions (ie. how often you have to sign on etc etc) so somebody doing the job well here, confronted with a case like the fictional "Daniel Blake" could set the lowest possible attendance conditions based on the knowledge that he may well win an appeal.

So Daniel Blake WOULD have an income. He'd have JSA, Housing benefit, Council tax benefit, free prescriptions and whatever else the local authority provided (in Nottingham they used to add in free public transport but I think now you only get a discount on travel). They would also have the discretionary possibility of referring him to a food bank if necessary.

Essentially, the whole plotline of the film ends after the opening section because that is where the film skews away from the reality of the benefits process and instead starts just making things up.

And -AND- you have to accept that "Daniel Blake" has "passed" a medical only days after a heart attack. Although it's shocking, I can find only one example reported by the press of a similar instance. ONE example. Of course, it's one too many, but to put it into perspective it is one in two million. That's 1 in 2,000,000.

Furthermore, reports of the ONE chap to whom this happened do not mention what happened after he was declared "fit for work". I would presume he followed the appeals process and won his case, as I outlined would happen above.

But that wouldn't make for much of a film.

[Rowls]

As for x amount of people dying when they've been declared fit for work, are there any figures showing how many 'unfit for work' people have died in the same period, or doesn't that suit the agenda?

No figures available.

Whatever the figures were, they'd be used "post-factually".

I suspect that the number dying should be slightly higher than the general populace (who I'd expect to be generally more healthy than average benefit claimants) but would not demonstrate any of the causal links that Loach and his supporters would love to exist.

[Rowls]

The appeals process is the very thing the film leads up to. Have you actually watched it or are you just making things up.

Leading up to.

Exactly.

And does Daniel receive state help in the meantime? Do we see him asking the benefits officers to reconsider the verdict? Do we see anybody considering the fiction that his fictional heart attack has not been taken into account? Do we see him receiving further benefits as I described above?

I don't believe any of this process in undertaken in the fictional film.

Please correct me if I'm wrong and please keep looking for "real Daniel Blakes". I'll concede if you find something but the basic plot of the film is so far removed from what I know happens in benefits making procedures (although they have changed since I worked there) that I do not believe there are any "real Daniel Blakes".

There will be lots of people dissatisfied with the service and plenty who feel aggrieved at having to undertake an appeals process but that is an unfortunate -but necessary- part of vigilance which I believe a proper welfare system should be performing.

[Papabendi]

Rowls - your comment was: 'shows no appeals process'. I would argue it is what the film is all about.

And your comment about finding a real Daniel Blake - why don't you categorically prove there isnt one. It amounts to the same thing.

[Lancasterclaret]

I reckon this could be a ten pager

[bfccrazy]

The Daniel Blake story shows what can happen. I think it shouldnt be looked at as an isolated incident of "that would never happen to an individual". There has been some leeway for the writers here and maybe they have merged mutilple scenarios into one as it has arguably made for a better film. Rather than use 10 charachters they have fit in different scenarios which all happen and people can relate to into one charachter. Some people will relate to individual incidents but as my dad did, others will relate to pretty much all of what happened.

As mentioned above - the system is failing people and needs a reform. It might be an extreme instance in the film but if it goes some way to pointing out what can happen to some people then it can inly be a positive in my eyes.

[Rowls]

Had a look at the film's synopsis on wikipedia:

"Consequently, the test's criterion for people who are at risk – which would have qualified Daniel for sickness benefits by itself – is not applied by a government "decision-maker". "

That's the sort of basic decision I'd expect to NEVER slip the net. That's basic, basic stuff. About as complex as checking that you're dealing with the right case before starting.

It's the sort of thing that would only be initially missed in one in a thousand cases and then picked up -BEFORE AN APPEAL- as soon as the claimant raised any issues.

It would be a very run-of-the-mill occurrence.

As I said before, find me ONE single real "Daniel Blake" to whom this has happened and I'll concede.

It's a work of fiction. I misrepresentative, work of political propaganda fiction.

[Rowls]

Rowls - your comment was: 'shows no appeals process'. I would argue it is what the film is all about.
And your comment about finding a real Daniel Blake - why don't you categorically prove there isnt one. It amounts to the same thing.

Fair enough. See my previous post (above).

The challenge is still on - find ONE real Daniel Blake. There are 2 million ESA claimants out there who could be your "real Daniel Blake". That's a lot to choose from.

I reckon you won't find one.

Not ONE.

Not even in two million.

[Juan Tanamera]

Longsider4ever.
It might be an idea to start a new thread about this film, then those of us who wish to can discuss it's merits.
Those who wish to continue their polical agendas can carry on here.

[Lancasterclaret]

I don't take Rowls on benefits because I know he used to work for the benefits office.

Doesn't stop him taking me on about stuff I know far more about than him though!

[bfccrazy]

I reckon this could be a ten pager

Which is still 42 less than Daniel Blake had to fill out .........

[Rowls]

"Consequently, the test's criterion for people who are at risk – which would have qualified Daniel for sickness benefits by itself – is not applied by a government "decision-maker". "

It's important to note what has to happen here.

1. The benefit claimant has to fail to mention their heart attack on their initial claim.
2. The benefit claim has to be passed by a benefits officer despite not necessarily including any reason why this person is claiming ESA - despite the fact that computer programmes require this in order to process a claim.
3. The benefit claim has to be signed off by a benefits decision maker despite the above error
4. The medical assessor has to fail to spot symptoms or ask for further details - despite the fact that the benefit claimants reason for claiming ESA should be provided to them as essential information
5. The benefit claimant has to fail to mention their heart attack again during the work assessment.
6. The benefit claimant has to fail to mention their heart attack yet again when asking for the decision to be reviewed (not legally appealed) and then errors 2 and 3 have to be repeated.

And if they did ask for their case to be reviewed and managed to mention their heart attack the following would happen for the entirety of the film to play out:

7. The benefits officer who received the request to review the decision would have to ignore the fact that it mentioned an previously unknown / unstated medical condition - despite the fact that this fundamental information should be available at every stage here.
8. The benefits officer would have to pass the case to a benefits decision maker (a different one to the decision-maker who originally awarded the benefits) who would have to make the same mistake as the benefits officer (ie. repeat mistakes 2 and 3 for a third time).

So you'd have to have:

* A claimant who missed 4 or 5 opportunities to clearly state their medical condition
* A medical assessor who also missed the relavent medical condition or failed to ask about it
* A faulty computer programme or a high ranking civil servant who has overruled an automated failsafe system
* 1 or 2 benefits officers who missed a fundamental lack of qualifying condition to ESA and the automated failsafe not being inplace
* At least 2 benefit decision makers who also missed the fundamental lack of a stated qualifying condition to ESA and all of the above errors as well

So, I'd like to aplogize. I said before that it "couldn't ever happen". But it -theoretically- could.

But I still stand by my assertion that there are no "real Daniel Blakes" out there. You'd need 4 or 5 people to be making fundamental, basic errors of judgment one after another on outstanding levels of stupidity coupled with a claimant who managed to successfully submit a claim without mentioning the small matter of a potentially fatal heart attack.

If I had to put a figure on the likelihood of there being a "real Daniel Blake" I'd estimate odds of well over several millions to one that these events could unfold.

Little wonder that even the Guardian haven't found a "real Daniel Blake".

The film has garnered much praise from left-wing critics and plenty of awards. I'd like to add to the praise with a single word.

I'm declaring the film to be "fantastical".

[Rowls]

Longsider4ever.
It might be an idea to start a new thread about this film, then those of us who wish to can discuss it's merits.
Those who wish to continue their polical agendas can carry on here.

Sorry juan but the merits of the film ARE a political agenda.

Perhaps a thread on cinematography or directing wouldn't attract this kind of debate.

[Lancasterclaret]

Come off it Rowls, the film is a film.

Just because Ken Loach is a bonkers Corbynista doesn't make the film a bad film.

*Apologies* - of course the film could be portrayed as a political film, but that shouldn't make a difference if its good or not.

If that is even being argued, I lost the plot sometime at the end of page 1.

[Papabendi]

Ken Loach should definitely start making films about nothing in particular. That would suit Rowls and Toby Young down to the ground.

[Rowls]

Come off it Rowls, the film is a film.
Just because Ken Loach is a bonkers Corbynista doesn't make the film a bad film.
*Apologies* - of course the film could be portrayed as a political film, but that shouldn't make a difference if its good or not.

I've stated on many occasions - several times on this thread - that I am sure it is a very well made piece of cinema.

My problem is with people taking it as an accurate presentation of the benefits system. It is NOT.

It is a fantastical piece of fiction designed to harbour support for the politicians who would leave our welfare system unreformed and allow further generations of Britons to endure lives blighted by the misery of welfare dependence.

If that is even being argued, I lost the plot sometime at the end of page 1.

Rather like the film.

[CleggHall]

But Rowls I will ask you for the 3rd time " have you actually seen the film?"

[Rowls]

But Rowls I will ask you for the 3rd time " have you actually seen the film?"

No. I thought that was obvious.

I don't watch a lot of films. I particularly wouldn't want to watch a film as political and untrue as this one.

I'm sure it's a well-made, well-directed film. I'm sure it would annoy me to hell with its inaccuracies and deficiencies of truth.

[Lancasterclaret]

Bit like me with "Braveheart".

Actually got told off for ranting about how historically inaccurate it was

[BFC Gold]

I personally know people who have been and are still going through very similar problems with the benefit system as the subject in hand. Regardless of what certain posters on here ignorantly profess, I can categorically confirm that the film,`which I have in fact watched mysely`, is very much true to life and is happening to hundreds if not thousands of people in Britain as we speak. Wake up.

[AndrewJB]

http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/faux-fa ... ullfactorg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Over to you, Rowls.

[Garnerssoap]

Rowls is good at recommending real ale gaffs when we play in Nottingham. I like him better then

[Longside4evr]

If I have correctly understood the gist of what you're attempting to say, I shall politely acknowledge your advice but take no notice. Thank you.

You really ought to put more effort into posting coherently Longside4evr.

Rowls you have got yourself into the clap trap of political jargon reading snippets from the Guardian as messed you up, and the news papers spin doctors have certainly clouded your judgement.
Instead of focusing all your inhibition into actually enjoying yourself than trying to convince other posters that your view is so sure and detrimental.
Politics are the biggest load of scaremongering bull $hitting obnoxious load of bullocks in any country.
And the reason I am saying this if you can't understand its because like you its got off the subject of the topic I Daniel Blake, that you hijacked with your own propaganda so all your input I am afraid is nonsensical
And just for the record Rowls my wife was kicked off benefits and she has cancer so the film in a lot of ways is very much how it is for a lot of people.
The DWP pay company's commission on kicking people off and saving money fact.

[Chobulous]

Watched this film last night and its a well covered prospective into a life that can seriously happen.
Its about a 59 year old carpenter recovering from a heart attack that befriends a single mother and her two kids.
As they navigate their way through the impersonal, Kafkaesque benefits system.With equal amounts of humor, warmth and despair,the journey is heartfelt and emotional until the end.
Its based in Newcastle and shows what can happen to the older generation that got caught short of the technology era.
Top film and highly recommendable watch 9 out of 10

This is the OP.
Note "As they navigate their way through the impersonal, Kafkaesque benefits system.With equal amounts of humor, warmth and despair,the journey is heartfelt and emotional until the end."

I'd say that putting forward an alternative view of the current benefits system based on experience of actually working within it is as fair a critique of the film as any other. Definitely not hijacking. If you don't agree with Rowl's arguments engage with him in discussion instead of throwing out cheap shots.

In my admittedly inexperienced view of the benefits system, when you allow discretion into an assessment you have to be very careful that there are clear guidelines or subjectivity increases and anomalies are bound to follow.

[If it be your will]

.

[Longside4evr]

No disrespect but I nominate Rowls to be Barry Normans predecessor top marks 9 out of 10

[TVC15]

Rowls - you're having a shocker on this one.

[TVC15]

On the one hand we have Rowls, who has gone into great detail, weighing in with his past experience in the benefits office to declare the film a fabrication that doesn't remotely reflect reality. He has reached this steadfast conclusion without having actually watched the film.

On the other hand anyone that has used the benefits system recently, or is a close relative of someone who has, have unanimously agreed it is a fairly accurate representation of reality.

I haven't watched it either. Who should I believe?

Not Rowls !

[If it be your will]

.

[AndrewJB]

For years we've been inundated by stories demonizing people on benefits - through newspapers, government policy, and even television programs. Indeed part of Toby Young's critique of "I Daniel Blake" is based on the fact that it isn't like "Benefits Street"

I stand to be corrected, but I don't recall Rowls correcting those imbalances.

[Lord Beamish]

Who's the bigger Gobshyte on this Messageboard?

Rowls or Imploding Turtle?

I reckon it's Rowls, by a nose.