Man sets himself on fire outside job centre after being found fit for work
Atos Macht Frei | 30.06.2012 10:29 | Public sector cuts | Social Struggles | Workers' Movements | Birmingham
Claimant found fit for work driven by desperation sets himself on fire after disgusting treatment by the job centre, Atos and government.
In recent months the plight of the disabled and jobless has been covered all over the media. From the workfare security workers who were forced to sleep under a bridge to the desperate claimants being found fit for work by the flawed health check system implemented by Atos.
It was predicted by many that it was only a matter of time until the desperate took matters into their own hands as evidenced by the situation which unfolded at the Birmingham job centre on Friday. It has been reported by a number of mainstream news outlets that a man who had been found fit for work proceeded to set himself on fire.
Also please note Birmingham Against the Cuts will be holding an emergency protest today (Saturday) at 3pm! Outside the Selly Oakes Job Centre.
http://birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/man-sets-himself-alight-outside-selly-oak-jobcentre/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/29/man-on-fire-birmingham-job-centre?newsfeed=true
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2012/06/29/protest-rally-to-be-held-at-birmingham-jobcentre-where-man-set-himself-on-fire-97319-31290706/
It was predicted by many that it was only a matter of time until the desperate took matters into their own hands as evidenced by the situation which unfolded at the Birmingham job centre on Friday. It has been reported by a number of mainstream news outlets that a man who had been found fit for work proceeded to set himself on fire.
Also please note Birmingham Against the Cuts will be holding an emergency protest today (Saturday) at 3pm! Outside the Selly Oakes Job Centre.
![](/img/extlink.gif)
![](/img/extlink.gif)
![](/img/extlink.gif)
Atos Macht Frei
Comments
Hide 11 hidden comments or hide all comments
Interesting...
30.06.2012 15:10
I'm not sure it warrants quite the fanfare it's getting.
ktf
Isn't that the point?
30.06.2012 18:03
ACAB
fix the problem not the symptom
30.06.2012 22:39
they all seem to get by without self-harm.
I don't think the benefits issue is really a big deal here.
There are plenty of other people who cause themselves self-harm who are in work.
The issue is his mental health, for which he obviously needs help.
Giving him 'money' isn't really solving the problems he has.
Jackie
Giving him money?
01.07.2012 09:34
It might not help him reclaim his sanity IF that is the issue but it will keep him fed and housed and clothed while he seeks the help he needs!
IHTF
Fuck off Jackie
01.07.2012 09:40
1 in 12er
Not the first Atos victims
01.07.2012 09:48
IHTF
48 years old?
01.07.2012 10:28
Work would keep him fed and housed (like the rest of the people in the world - this isn't some weird, new invention). Just sounds really desperate not to work and he's had a tantrum over the fact when the 'adults' have tried to get him to eat his vegetables.
Chiun
backbone
01.07.2012 11:11
If someone is asking for money and giving you a sob story, you can cave in and give them money or not. Personally, i don't fall for it. Just burnt his legs--- obviously just doing it for show
Max
you really thought that one through
01.07.2012 11:54
anon
before the pedants arrive
01.07.2012 12:00
anon
before the pedants arrive
01.07.2012 12:02
anon
before the pedants arrive
01.07.2012 13:34
anon
@ anon
01.07.2012 13:35
also 'anon' no one truly one cares what you think.
you have failed as an adult, that is clear from analysis of your words, of the style in which you present your ideas. you perhaps jacked in your last 'proper job' through stress and more than likely live off someone else, or the state.
anyway, i digress...
if you want your daily mail views to be considered, then you only have to redirect your browser to their website, which you probably do regularly to troll there too!
and returning to the subject:
it is perhaps not common knowledge but is close to being a fact, that nearly 80 percent of those that challenge atos's so called 'fit for work' rulings win their appeals. i do not know if this statistic is only for the area where i am, probably is, but the info was given to me by a comrade who works for the citizens advice. she advised me to tell people to appeal and so far the two people i have told this to have appealed and won their appeals., without which, they would be faced with emotional and mental ruin (ie. those suffering under the weight and unchecked draconia of the mental health system).
all the best to those fighting for their benefits
francesca
jackie..
01.07.2012 13:38
That's right, self-harm never happens.
h
I've got an idea
01.07.2012 15:51
Wouldn't it be best if everyone was on benefits and no one worked?
Jackie
Never happen under Anarchy
01.07.2012 20:38
So - this would never happen under Anarchy - which is why it is better.
Anarchist
Jackie, your attitude is the problem
02.07.2012 12:58
"Millions of people work and millions of people are unemployed....
they all seem to get by without self-harm.
I don't think the benefits issue is really a big deal here.
There are plenty of other people who cause themselves self-harm who are in work.
The issue is his mental health, for which he obviously needs help.
Giving him 'money' isn't really solving the problems he has."
* * *
What exactly is your point here? Self-harm happens regardless of employment status, ergo self-immolators are perfectly fit to work? Who do you work for, Jackie, ATOS? Or perhaps you're saying that, by virtue of the extreme nature of the act, we should dismiss this man as 'insane'. It's an isolated incident, nothing to see here, move along. He's not self-harming in a moderate, socially responsible way, i.e. behind closed doors after a hard day's work or whilst complying with his Jobseekers Agreement in a futile job market. Do you realise that the 'millions don't do x so the person that does do x isn't valid' is a logically fallacious argument? It's actually meaningless.
Of course the benefits is the issue, why on Earth do you think he made the poignant decision to make this protest at the Jobcentre? It's an act of desperation. In essence it's a political act too. You say he obviously needs help with his mental health issue, well money for food and shelter IS help, or does that only count when it comes from charity and not the tax-payer? I'm sure this man could do with other help too, perhaps from mental health services, but when you factor in that at the very same time people like him are losing their sickness benefits, the government is forcing councils to slash funding to critical services that act as a lifeline (including those that support people with disabilities back into work), and forcing them into a job market they're not ready to cope with, then you have the perfect storm of desperation that leads someone to self-immolate at a Jobcentre. If desperation is the symptom, Jackie, then the problem is the savaging of the welfare state that causes it. Throwing everyone off sickness benefits (which is effectively what it happening via ATOS barring the most severe cases that have good advocacy) is an exercise in seeing who will sink and who will swim. And fuck those who drown eh? This is a recession, so a policy of Social Darwinism is perfectly permissable. We can't afford to be a progressive society, so let's ride the Tory Express back to the Victorian era.
It's easy to call someone a nutjob and dismiss their despair and fears, but there is no binary either/or definition of SANE/INSANE when it comes to mental health. I can empathise with the man who set himself on fire because I'm in almost exactly the same situation, and I feel desperate too, suicidal even. ATOS don't believe I'm a risk, despite having not done anything approaching a risk assessment. I'm an intelligent person who can certainly present a more cogent and articulate argument than you can Jackie, but I suppose you'd just dismiss me as insane too, and hence my views are rendered immaterial. Ignore the outliers, folks, most people self-harm discretely after watching Emmerdale, and they still go to work the next day, with their sleeves rolled down to hide the scars, like good citizens should. The rest are just loons that need to be locked up.
pangolin
limp wristed sob stories
02.07.2012 23:25
If you don't want money... then don't. Stay in bed. Watch TV. Go for walk.
Taxpayers shouldn't bankroll people who don't like work. Anyone who thinks setting fire to self is preferable to working is insane. At no point is setting fire to self sane. Political reasons?! Sorry I ain't bank rolling someone's political whims. If they wanna buy petrol to burn they can use their own money
just do it
Reply...
03.07.2012 13:18
I would too!
ktf
utter tosh
03.07.2012 20:32
No they don't - thats bullshit. Any evidence to support this?
I notice that this geezer cost the taxpayer for support, cost the tax payer for hospital and will no doubt cost the tax payer in the future. Sympathy?.......noooooooo. Should give him a job fixing all the potholes in the road.
loser
read posts properly before replying loser
04.07.2012 10:59
No they don't - thats bullshit. Any evidence to support this? "
If you had actually read through my post properly it would have been obvious that I was being ironic in reference to Jackie's previous post. Are you really so stupid that you couldn't detect that? Or did you just skim through without paying attention?
Since you obviously need it spelt out to you, it was about this statement by Jackie:
"I don't think the benefits issue is really a big deal here. There are plenty of other people who cause themselves self-harm who are in work. The issue is his mental health, for which he obviously needs help."
Jackie suggests that the fact someone self-immolates in front of a Jobcentre in desperation is irrelevant and that his act is dismissed as being due to mental health issues. Jackie also seems to suggest that because people who work self-harm too, there is no causal link between this man's situation (having his sickness benefits taken away) and his act or that he's an extreme case because he's mentally ill and not functional enough to work, Of course that's the point entirely, he's ill and genuinely in need of support, and, in extremis, he resorts to setting himself on fire as an act of protest. Clearly he has the wherewithal to know the agency that are taking away his lifeline and placing him in such dire straights. Without that sort of pressure he never would've self-immolated. Clearly it wasn't simply the random act of an insane person, but that's what people like Jackie want to believe as they want to avert their eyes from the desperation people are facing.
As for this:
"I notice that this geezer cost the taxpayer for support, cost the tax payer for hospital and will no doubt cost the tax payer in the future. Sympathy?.......noooooooo. Should give him a job fixing all the potholes in the road."
Hmmm, so the criterion for whether someone deserves sympathy or not is based on whether the support they need would come from the state or from their own funds. That's an interesting approach to ethics. What would be a better system, pray tell? Eugenics? Perhaps you'd feel better in a society that ignores the vulnerable and leaves them to starve or freeze on the street. You're a real humanitarian buddy. Oh, and that last sentence, just to be sure you understand it correctly.... I was being ironic.
All the bile you spout really exposes is that you're a heartless wretch. I hope you find a time machine that can take you back to the dark ages, because that's where your thinking belongs. Better still go to the US and join up with the Tea Party.
pangolin
a better system
04.07.2012 18:52
Well, someone else replied to it indicating they agreed with the statement, yet you don't seem to be moaning about them responding to your point.
So now you are saying it is ironic? Thats just a short word for made-up-bullshit. Hence, my reply that it was bullshit. Yet you seem to have issue with that?
> Jackie suggests that the fact someone self-immolates in front of a Jobcentre in desperation is irrelevant and that his act is dismissed as being due to mental health issues.
Yes - agreed. I think you will seriously struggle to argue that setting fire to yourself is a behaviour of someone without mental health issues. At no point is setting fire to oneself normal.
> Jackie also seems to suggest that because people who work self-harm too, there is no causal link between this man's situation (having his sickness benefits taken away) and his act or that he's an extreme case because he's mentally ill and not functional enough to work,
Theres another option. Hes trying it on. Plenty of people do that when there is free money concerned.
> Of course that's the point entirely, he's ill and genuinely in need of support
Is he too ill to work though? If he can walk around, buy petrol and set fire to himself etc, then he is able to 'do tasks'. Thats pretty much the definition of work.
I used to work with a guy who could put 7.5 hours in and he was literally on a motorised chair with very limited movement. Yet, he could do plenty of tasks with no problem with working.
> and, in extremis, he resorts to setting himself on fire as an act of protest.
How convenient. I would argue that he shouldn't have set fire to himself as an act of protest. And, if he does decide to set fire to himself - thats his own business and no one elses.
> Clearly he has the wherewithal to know the agency that are taking away his lifeline and placing him in such dire straights.
Yes, which clearly means he is capable of taking actions and doing stuff. Which is the ability to complete tasks. Which is the definition of work.
> Without that sort of pressure he never would've self-immolated.
If that easy option for a 'lifeline' didn't exist in the first place, he would work for a living. The 'lifeline' existing has put the idea in his brain that he can use himself as a hostage to extort free money out of people because he has been so wrapped in cotton wool for so long he has forgotten that work is an option available to him.
> Clearly it wasn't simply the random act of an insane person, but that's what people like Jackie want to believe as they want to avert their eyes from the desperation people are facing.
It was an act of someone who is not really trying to do self harm (just the legs?!) but trying to bully people into giving him free money so he doesn't have to work. Its a con game, like a kid who screams and shouts and smashes their head against a wall when the parents say that he has to eat his vegetables. Just trying it on. Ignore it, and he will work. Cave in and the guy will take every penny you have.
> Hmmm, so the criterion for whether someone deserves sympathy or not is based on whether the support they need would come from the state or from their own funds. That's an interesting approach to ethics.
Obviously i think he is trying to pull the wool over people eyes - so me paying him money wouldn't be on. You think differently - so you deal with the cash issue if you want to.
> What would be a better system, pray tell?
I think a system where people are assessed if they are fit to work or not would be a good idea. And if they are, then they should not get sickness benefits.
> All the bile you spout really exposes is that you're a heartless wretch. I hope you find a time machine that can take you back to the dark ages, because that's where your thinking belongs. Better still go to the US and join up with the Tea Party.
I shudder to think how long you would last walking around certain streets where people gave you sob stories about how they need cash off you.
firestarter
Hide 11 hidden comments or hide all comments