For instance, she could have been rated as a low-level disabled person and received less government subsidy. 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 subsidies accordingly. The difference in disability levels means a significant difference in the government's burden, and also a significant difference in the taxpayers' burden.
When the Plymouth government discovered that the obese woman could get out of bed on her own, and even used the subsidies provided by taxpayers to go see strip shows, when they found out that the woman was using taxpayer money to buy alcohol and cigarettes, they regretted not investigating her beforehand and classifying her as a high-level disabled person, giving her the highest welfare benefits, and even assigning someone specifically to help her bathe, eat, dress, and buy groceries, etc.
But it was too late. The Plymouth government either had to accept the loss or hire a lawyer to sue the obese woman. Now, the lawsuit has entered the prosecution stage, and by the time the final verdict is reached, it may take 5 to 6 years. And after 5 or 6 years, the obese woman might be even fatter, and the local government might lose the case.
By then, including lawyer fees, litigation costs, and compensation for losing the case, the government's expenses could amount to an astronomical figure. And regardless of 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 day in and day out, doing whatever they want? This is closely related to the inefficiency and incompetence of local governments and some terrifyingly 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 piece of news on the same page on the same day.
The news reported about an illegal immigrant from Uganda named Muhammad Kandi. Nine years ago, he attempted to rape a woman ten years older than him named Gabrielle Brown in a park in London. At the time, Brown was jogging in a park in London when Kandi pulled her into a corner and tortured her for an hour. In the end, because there were passersby, Kandi let her go.
Brown, feeling unable to tolerate it anymore, filed a lawsuit with 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, having a British girlfriend, and thus could not 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 Kandi back to Uganda. This year, the court finally decided to do so. But for nine years, Kandi had been receiving subsidies from the UK government, living in free housing, yet daily engaging in activities harmful to the British public, causing incalculable losses to society, taxpayers, and numerous innocent women.