For example, she could have been rated as a low-level disabled person and received less government assistance. Instead, she claimed that she couldn't get out of bed, couldn't buy things for herself, and couldn't bathe herself. As a result, the government had to classify her as the highest level of disability and provide assistance accordingly. The difference in disability ratings means a significant difference in the government's burden, as well as a significant difference in the burden on taxpayers.
When the Plymouth government discovered that the obese woman could get out of bed on her own and even used taxpayer-provided benefits to go watch stripteases, and when they found out that she was using taxpayer money to buy alcohol and cigarettes, they regretted not investigating her properly before classifying her as a high-level disabled person and giving her the highest welfare benefits, including assigning someone to help her bathe, eat, dress, and buy groceries, etc.
But it was too late. The Plymouth government had two options: either accept the situation or hire a lawyer to sue the obese woman. Now, the case has entered the prosecution stage, and by the time the trial is over, it may take 5 to 6 years. And after 5 or 6 years, the obese woman might be even fatter, and the local government could lose the lawsuit.
By then, including legal fees, filing fees, and damages for losing the case, the government's expenses could amount to an astronomical figure. And whether the local government wins or loses, the money spent will come from the taxpayers.
Overall, why are there so many people who rely on the government all day, doing whatever they want without regard for others? This has a close relationship with the inefficiency and incompetence of local governments, as well as some terrifying and complex laws and regulations in the UK.
I read this news in the British newspaper "The Daily Mail" (16-2-12, p21). Speaking of human rights laws in the UK, the same newspaper published another news story on the same page on the same day.
The news reported about an illegal immigrant from Uganda named Muhammad Kandi. Nine years ago, in a park in London, he attempted to rape a woman ten years older than him named Gabrielle Brown. At the time, Brown was jogging in a park in London when Kandi pulled her into a corner and tortured her for an hour. Finally, because passersby were nearby, Kandi let her go.
Brown, feeling unable to tolerate this, filed a lawsuit against the court, strongly demanding that Kandi be deported. However, the lawyers and judges defended Kandi, sentencing him to only one year in prison and refusing to deport him, citing the reason that Kandi had established his own private life in the UK and had a British girlfriend, so he couldn't leave the UK.
Who would have thought that after being released from prison, Kandi continued to commit crimes. Over seven years, he harmed countless innocent women. Brown never gave up on suing Kandi, persistently demanding that the government deport him back to Uganda. This year, the court finally decided to do so. However, for nine years, Kandi had been receiving benefits from the UK government, living in free housing, while daily harming the British public, causing incalculable losses to society, taxpayers, and numerous innocent women.