For example, she could have been rated as a low-level disabled person and received less government assistance, but she claimed that she couldn't get out of bed, couldn't buy things for herself, and couldn't take a shower on her own. As a result, the government had to classify her as severely disabled and provide her with assistance accordingly. The difference in disability ratings 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 overweight woman could get out of bed by herself, and even used the taxpayer-provided benefits to watch striptease shows, and when they found out that she was using taxpayer money to buy alcohol and cigarettes, they regretted not having investigated her properly before classifying her as severely disabled and giving her the highest level of welfare benefits, including assigning someone to help her bathe, eat, dress, and buy groceries, among other things.
But it was too late. The Plymouth government either had to accept the situation or hire lawyers to sue the overweight woman. Now, the lawsuit has entered the prosecution stage, and it may take 5 to 6 years to reach a final verdict. And after 5 or 6 years, the overweight woman might be even heavier, and the local government might lose the case.
By then, including lawyer fees, prosecution costs, and damages 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 for their daily needs and behave irresponsibly? This is closely related to the inefficiency and incompetence of the local government, as well as some terrifying and complex laws and regulations in the UK.
I read about this news in the British newspaper "The Daily Mail" (16-2-12, p21). Regarding the topic of human rights law in the UK, the same newspaper published another piece of news on the same page on the same day.
The news reported on 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. Eventually, because passersby were around, Kandi let her go.
Brown, feeling utterly frustrated, filed a lawsuit against the court, strongly demanding that Kandi be deported. However, the lawyer and judge 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 the course of 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. However, for nine years, Kandi had been receiving relief from the British government, living in free housing, yet every day engaging in activities harmful to British citizens, causing incalculable losses to society, taxpayers, and numerous innocent women.