Labour – and especially Corbyn – supporters on social media will be aware of the fantastic contribution to Labour campaigning by @Rachael_Swindon, who was prominent in a list of the UK’s most politically-influential women on social media after the recent General Election for the impact of her memes and tweets.
Rachael, who is a mother of two and a full-time carer to a disabled husband, has been under attack from right-wingers, including a malignant and malicious report to the DWP that resulted in the cessation of benefits for a period during which SKWAWKBOX readers came to the rescue.
Now Rachael has some good news. After five years homeless, she and her family now have a permanent home away from the area where she received so much grief and will be moving in in a couple of weeks.
SKWAWKBOX readers will no doubt want to congratulate Rachael. If you would like to make a ‘house-warming’ gift – the house is unfurnished and uncarpeted, so will need to be fitted out from scratch – please visit her blog page and use the donate button there.
That’s great news! I just wish to high even that malicious people could be wiped off the face of the earth. I know which group I’d wipe off first. 🙂
KEEP UP THE PRESSURE RACHAEL.
I AM RIGHT BEHIND YOU, METAPHORICALLY OF COURSE.
good luck with you new home Rachel and keep postin it’s working !
Reblogged this on disabledsingleparent.
Tweeted @melissacade68
I’m curious as to why a report to the DWP of suspected benefit fraud must be “malignant and malicious”
Can’t such a report ever be in good faith?
99% of “fraud” reports to the DWP are found to be baseless. However, it does not stop the intended “victim” from having all benefits stopped, and then subjected to a lengthy and frightening criminal investigation. All complaints are of course anonymous. Many are believed to be malicious. One must not accept that the complaints procedure is in any way fair. Imagine, if the last time you had words with your neighbour about their bins being left out all week, you were suddenly deprived of all income and subjected to full criminal investigation. That’s about the level of the average “fraud” investigation with sometimes life-changing outcomes even for those found innocent. For those with physical or MH problems such events can lead to self harm. The old adage that you have nothing to fear if you are innocent certainly does not apply to any DWP investigation, which certainly has no concept of being innocent until proved guilty.
Taking everything you say as correct, why should this particular report be classed as malignant and malicious, when it may or may not be? “Possibly malicious” perhaps – but the article doesn’t say that.
Like all those ‘bona fide reports’ to the Gestapo from jealous/vindictive neighbours in nazi germany, graham?
Oh, look – I’ve ‘Godwinned’ the thread…
As I’ve already pointed out previously – You’re the type of slime that writes to the daily heil complaining that women are ‘deliberately’ giving birth to disabled kids solely to claim disability payments.
Odious turd, with no idea of the misery inflicted by you & yours upon real people. Any misfortune visited upon you by the same method would be welcomed most enthusiastically. You could call it ‘poetic justice’.
Goodness. I’ve posed a question. Why is this particular report classed as malignant and malicious when it may be, or may not be. Surely “possibly” would have been a prudent qualifier.
Trolling Graham?
Hindson’s hypocrisy & prejudice evident to all & sundry here.
Calls for Skwawkbox to provide evidence every time, yet thinks that someone on benefits subject to a malicious, specious ‘report’ is guilty until proved innocent.
Rachael (To the best of my knowledge) has not been found guilty of anything. Yet you seem to think she’s fair game to be subject to investigation based on frivolous baseless accusations; merely by fact of claiming benefit(s).
You’re a shithouse, hindson. A miserable, hypocritical, prejudiced shithouse.
I’ve said absolutely nothing about whether anyone is guilty until proven innocent.
I actually think that anyone (including me) is fair game to be subject to investigation based on frivolous and/or baseless accusations because until the matter is investigated no one knows whether the allegations are in fact either of those things.
I’m posing the question – why is this particular report assumed to be malicious?
By virtue of asking why the investigation (In this specific instance) ISN’T based on a malicious ‘report’ you’ve shown your hand.
Wouldn’t surprise me to find you made the allegation, such is your inane, inherent, inbred, idiocy.
So come on, dickhead – where’s your evidence this WASN’T a frivolous investigation? It’s based on Rachael getting an ‘alleged income’ from donations to her blog, you fucking know-nothing oaf. A gift (Of less than £3k p.a. IIRC) isn’t classed as income, is it? Who gets £3k from writing a blog ffs?
And has/was she found guilty? I don’t think so, because she wouldn’t be moving into a new home.
Tell you what, I could go the local plod shop and accuse you of downloading indecent pictures of children…Let’s see how willing to be ‘fair game’ to investigation you are then, eh?
You might not have done – But like you think about Rachael – it’s a ‘possibility’ , isn’t it?
Gormless twunt.
‘I’m only posing a question’…No you’re a lying reprehensible turd with an agenda.
Great news indeed Rachael – ignore the morons and keep on carrying the torch for what you believe in – and very good luck with your move! Chapeaux to Ya! XX
Great news Rachel!
Gives me hope, after being found F4w and inside they put a statement from the Assessor saying that I would be at ” substantial risk” if found ” fit 4 work”. !!!
Am nearly 64…. 🤢
WTG, Rachel, ignore the crap- ” little pitchers make the most noise, that person would need a stepladder to look a worm in the eye…
Rachael I wish you all the very best in your new home. Keep up the excellent work, I love your tweets.
@The Toffee
I’ve just spotted your latest foul keyboarded response to me.
I know nothing of the rules on income, nor the allegation made in this case, but you may recall that the question I posed, which seems to have provoked such outrage, was why the complaint was categorised by Skwawkbox as necessarily malicious and malignant. Cannot such a report ever be made in good faith?
There’s been a lot of steam and hot air in response, but no substantive response.
Hi swawkbox 😁
Racheal and her family deserve every happiness and support we can give her . I’d no idea she did not have her own home . I’m absolutely thrilled that they are now about to move into one . I’m off to send a prezzie 🏠❤️