Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Disability hate on MN

559 replies

IClaudine · 02/05/2024 13:31

Hi MNHQ

Since Sunak’s announcement on disability benefits, there has been a big increase on MN in hostility towards people who receive then.

The abuse, hate and outright lies (my neighbour’s son’s cousin’s wife climbs Mount Everest but gets PIP etc) being spewed on MN towards disabled people, a group with protected characteristics, has been dreadful and very distressing for disabled people and their loved ones to read,

Please can you do something?

Here is a small selection of the threads where the disability benefit bashers have paid a visit and had a field day. There may be more, but I can’t face searching for them!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5064828-to-be-terrified-about-pip?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share  

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5065470-people-who-work-have-anxiety-too?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5066670-aibu-to-hope-that-able-bodied-people-will-support-disabled-people-against-the-tory-attack-on-pip?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/money-matters/5064856-pip-vouchers-to-replace-money?reply=134966246&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/money-matters/5066331-do-you-feel-bad-for-receiving-a-high-amount-of-uc?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Bumpitybumper · 03/05/2024 22:21

RainbowZebraWarrior · 03/05/2024 21:28

It was said many times on that thread that taxis were a luxury. Even when it was explained that taxis in these instances were for ND kids that couldn't cope with public transport.

I'm a single parent. I'm disabled. My child is disabled. I was a full time worker on a high wage for 33 years until I had to give up work due to my own health and that of my child.

It is disingenuous to say that is just an alternative opinion. Being disabled is a protective characteristic. Being challenged on that disability, or that of your child should break talk guidelines. It often borders a personal attack.

So yes, guidelines should be clear on that. Hence the reason for this thread.

You derailed the thread in question due to your constant questioning. One of your major arguments was around temporary illness and injury. It's not the same as being permanently disabled. It's been pointed out again and again to you. Temporary illness or injury is something we all can expereince and should plan for if we can. Permanent disability is a very different thing. Stop making disabled people feel responsible for something they have no control over. It's difficult enough.

So do you think that people shouldn't be able to debate anything to do with religion then because that too is a protected characteristic? What about gender reassignment? Half of this forum would be removed if people weren't allowed to question things related to protected characteristics.Sex is a protected characteristic so this is a complete minefield on a forum like this when posters frequently express strong opinions about other women (SAHMs, working mum debates) and men (the Feminism board). We are going to rapidly end up with a forum where very little can be discussed and debated it will almost always end up straying into an area that touches onto a protected characteristic

I also think we need to think about how posters treat inference. Should we ban any post that could possibly interpreted as being offensive to someone with a protected characteristic? What if my interpretation is different to your interpretation?

Again, you have mischaracterised my argument. I never wrote anything about temporary illnesses being the same as long term disabilities, I argued that the needs that arise from a short term (under 12 months) version of a condition can be the same as the needs that arise from a longer term version (over 12 months) of the same condition. Depression was used as an example. You can disagree with me but it is simply that, a difference of opinion. You are not objectively correct because it's nuanced and hugely case dependent. I really don't want to start this up again but sometimes it really is just a difference opinion and you may well feel that the other opinion is wrong and offensive but that doesn't mean it should be banned. The same is true with taxis.

Sometimeswinning · 03/05/2024 22:18

RainbowZebraWarrior · 03/05/2024 21:17

Yes. Me too. So it's even started on this thread. Challenging what's offensive to people living through very difficult and complex caring responsibilities, then others blithely saying that respite care is "babysitting to go and drink wine"

The people who state that this is acceptable are either on the wind up, or don't understand the constant chipping away of their lived experiences.

No. I just commented that mumsnet doesn’t need to remove a comment because someone is offended by it. It’s not a support group it’s aibu.

I’m glad there are benefits for people who cannot work or work part time because there is very little out there in terms of childcare where there are disabilities. I hope no one has to do without them.

Tortiemiaw · 03/05/2024 22:05

And now there's another one up. I am shocked at the vitriol and ignorance from people. Apparently, it's really easy and common to live 'off benefits' as a lifestyle choice; why should taxpayers pay for these scummy addicts sleeping all day etc etc...There are some cunts on this forum, there really are.

RainbowZebraWarrior · 03/05/2024 21:28

Bumpitybumper · 03/05/2024 20:05

People have opinions on almost everything including how all sorts of people spend their money. These opinions will be stronger when it involves tax payers money because we all feel that we have contributed to the pot and want to see that money spent sensibly. Opinions about what is 'sensible' may differ but as you may have noticed on MN, the strength of feeling that surrounds public spending isn't unique to threads about the disabled and there has to be some logic applied that someone that disagrees with the some elements of disability spending isn't necessarily doing this due to some burning hatred of the disabled.

The luxury debate did derail discussion but again, it's important to remember that nobody had argued that disabled people shouldn't be able to use taxis. This was never written. Once again though, some posters were absolutely determined to argue this had been written despite being completely unable to verify this with a properly contextualised quote. Posters will merrily insist their interpretation of what was written trumps what was actually written.

The very worst comments I have read on MN are about SAHPs and Tory voters. Outright insults and taunts. I don't necessarily think these posts should be taken down but I do think posts should be moderated consistently. If we are taking down comments because they could be considered offensive then half of this forum will be gone. If nobody can question how anyone spends their money then this should be consistently applied to everyone. Guidelines need to be specific and clear.

It was said many times on that thread that taxis were a luxury. Even when it was explained that taxis in these instances were for ND kids that couldn't cope with public transport.

I'm a single parent. I'm disabled. My child is disabled. I was a full time worker on a high wage for 33 years until I had to give up work due to my own health and that of my child.

It is disingenuous to say that is just an alternative opinion. Being disabled is a protective characteristic. Being challenged on that disability, or that of your child should break talk guidelines. It often borders a personal attack.

So yes, guidelines should be clear on that. Hence the reason for this thread.

You derailed the thread in question due to your constant questioning. One of your major arguments was around temporary illness and injury. It's not the same as being permanently disabled. It's been pointed out again and again to you. Temporary illness or injury is something we all can expereince and should plan for if we can. Permanent disability is a very different thing. Stop making disabled people feel responsible for something they have no control over. It's difficult enough.

RainbowZebraWarrior · 03/05/2024 21:17

Rainyspringflowers · 03/05/2024 20:29

No, I think that’s appalling.

Yes. Me too. So it's even started on this thread. Challenging what's offensive to people living through very difficult and complex caring responsibilities, then others blithely saying that respite care is "babysitting to go and drink wine"

The people who state that this is acceptable are either on the wind up, or don't understand the constant chipping away of their lived experiences.

IClaudine · 03/05/2024 20:48

It has started up again on yet another thread. I really have had enough now. I would delete my MN membership if it wasn't for the fact that there is a long running thread thatvI really enjoy.

OP posts:
Rainyspringflowers · 03/05/2024 20:29

Sometimeswinning · 03/05/2024 20:22

It’s not a fair comment but not really worth reporting.

No, I think that’s appalling.

Bumpitybumper · 03/05/2024 20:25

@Noras
*So a PA takes me son out for the day - she’s working and has lunch and a drink whilst taking him to the cinema -

Who pays for lunch for the PA and a drink?

My son goes out with the Pa and refuses to get on a bus and another bus - 2 hours late they get him back - that’s 2 hours extra Pa time at say £12 per hour - the Uber would have been £8. As a result of the stress he/ she resigns so a new advert is put out ( £250 cost) parents have to interview and train. There are administrative expense signing the new Pa up for PAYE and issuing a contract. Who covers the advertising costs for a PA?*

That is simply not what you wrote though on that thread! I have posted what was actually written above. I think £100 is a vast underestimate if we factor in the £250 advert etc. I don't want to restart the debate because I know this isn't the place and I don't really want to get into individual's circumstances but I just want to highlight to MN HQ the misrepresentation that can go on and how this is used to cast posters as villains.

Sometimeswinning · 03/05/2024 20:22

Rainyspringflowers · 02/05/2024 15:40

reported an individual post and was told to challenge them myself. Apparently it didnt break talk guidlines. This was someone who was calling respite care 'babysitting so you can go and drink wine'

Thats disgusting.

It’s not a fair comment but not really worth reporting.

Noras · 03/05/2024 20:07

Bumpitybumper · 03/05/2024 19:13

Sorry but this is a completely inaccurate recollection of that thread. Nobody argued that the poster's son should 'stay at home and not do anything nice and normal'. The cinema trip in question would have cost over £100 and caused the son distress and the PA (so much so that they stopped working as the son's PA). It was merely pointed out that this trip sounded excessive in many ways and wasn't really sustainable as the only way the son could leave the house. Nobody suggested other alternatives shouldn't be explored or that the son should be left at home without the opportunity to do anything nice. It is this kind of mischaracterisation of what was actually written that is just so unhelpful.

You may well have other views on the necessity of the cinema trip and whether it was worth it. That's fine, but it's not ok to pretend things were written that simply weren't.

Actually - The PA never left the job - I said if they did not take an Uber the Pa would cost more ( paid by the hour) and it’s cheaper. But also it’s stressful having someone refuse a bus or panic over ordering a taxi. It is a requirement of their role as required by the payer - social services.

1 you had no idea about the costing for that trip you created the sum of £100 from thin air. We pay the cinema tickets the Pa cinema ticket is free but yet there are PA expenses as you would get with any job.

2 You had no idea of background. The needs based assessment led by social services want my son out in the community or using his social fund to go out as well as do activities at home but the actual wording is to ‘access community ‘ The assessments in future will be how well he is accessing community etc He does a variety of things with the PA day and night depending on time of year / term time/ holiday time. Cinema trips or trips to cafes are exactly what he should be doing and indeed the Pa costs in that regard are costed as DRE - disability related expenses - which ultimately have been the subject of much debate with Ombudsmen etc so reduce his social care bill. But hey you just speak without understanding the needs of my son or the full facts.

3 My job is to organise the PA which is quite a lot of work and you have no idea how to recruit it is. I have to organise the various forays into community which I might add and you might hate this going to the pub or to a cafe - it’s all part of his social care plan needs. It’s all required by his social care plan.

4 Cinema is slightly more accessible as he has a topic to talk to ( his SLi is severely impaired - especially receptive - source Great Ormond Street) and it makes it an evening where he does some talking, has something to talk about but he does not have to panic and intensely think about what to say. It means frankly he can stay out a bit longer and it usually makes him feel that he has had a success which is critical to his well being. Generally non cinema or trips to the pub are more fraught with anxiety etc.

5 My son is assessed by so many trained experts -

6 In actual fact I am in trouble for not doing enough of this stuff as frankly it’s easier to keep him home with a PA and plan nothing. I have not spent several thousands of PA cover and there have been meeting about that. But part the issue is recruiting PA as we use students and they do suddenly have exams or holidays and generally a life.

7 He has to get out in the community even for instance at night and do activities - it’s required training. His PA are paid by the local authority to do that. I’m being attacked for actually doing what is required by social services so the whole thing is bemusing. Also I have to ensure the safety of the PA but bus training is all part of their role and indeed Uber . But if my son is being challenging he can’t be forced onto a bus and so they will use and uber and again using an uber for him is life skills. So transition team also spent time trying to coax him to use an Uber,.

You are criticising me for for what I am required to do to the extent that I would be neglectful if I did not get him out to did not get him trained to use an Uber or get a bus.

8 I have only ever caught an Uber once with my son and it was me that paid not the tax payer! I tend to leave that to PA. Instead I try to push the bus training through gentle persuasion but we fail at times - I get wet or walk or get a life from hubby.

9 You have not read my son’s medical records, his care plan, his EHcP and have no idea of his needs. I tried to explain eg re the CAMHS suicidal risk assessment, the ongoing counselling and generally the fact that he in life skills etc

10 In some ways the PA’s likes these trips as it makes the job more enjoyable which helps with recruitment. But the Uber thing was stressful as my son and indeed the PA struggled to do it. My husband ended up
picking them up.

11 There is only a certain number of times he can go out with the Pa and walk the dog and frankly it does not expose him to the general public of crowded places. So we will also have to send him to McDonalds or the shopping centre to go clothes shopping or to a restaurant,

These are similar things to his life skills course and they do a variety of things eg go to gym and learn about the body, go to cafe and order a lunch - you could have a go at all these experienced experts at all these colleges as well or leave them to do their job.

when someone is in fear of going out and would prefer to stay home and positively hates holidays etc it’s a different type of person to someone who plans a social life and wants to be out. It’s an issue because they are not engaging and that can progress to being a hermit and the care needs expand. An example is that over Covid things worsened and all my work with bus travel was lost. My son also become more intolerant to the city centre.

I’m really pleased with the progress as as I said I hope to look at independent shortly but with a team of Pa or a Pa package or maybe supported - the social worker is not sure how it will go as we are not there yet, it’s being discussed in general terms. But every cinema trip is a success and I’m actually pretty pleased if they do well. They sometimes have not gone well - the small cafe where they were going to pick up a felafel was closed he could not cope with the change and had a meltdown in the adjoining burger bar - this is exactly the learning he needs. This is what life is all about. You don’t get that in a room.

I also do everything I can to help the PA stay as recruitment is expensive eg invite them for family meals and act as a home from home - they are not well paid. Also we buy nice gifts to say ‘thanks’ etc

Bumpitybumper · 03/05/2024 20:05

XenoBitch · 03/05/2024 19:25

But it seems because someone is a tax payer (which everyone is), they seem to think they can comment and on how disabled people spend their money.

And it seemed in that case people were considering a cinema trip to be a luxury. I think it was the same thread where there was a discussion spanning several pages about whether or not a taxi was a luxury or necessity.

People have opinions on almost everything including how all sorts of people spend their money. These opinions will be stronger when it involves tax payers money because we all feel that we have contributed to the pot and want to see that money spent sensibly. Opinions about what is 'sensible' may differ but as you may have noticed on MN, the strength of feeling that surrounds public spending isn't unique to threads about the disabled and there has to be some logic applied that someone that disagrees with the some elements of disability spending isn't necessarily doing this due to some burning hatred of the disabled.

The luxury debate did derail discussion but again, it's important to remember that nobody had argued that disabled people shouldn't be able to use taxis. This was never written. Once again though, some posters were absolutely determined to argue this had been written despite being completely unable to verify this with a properly contextualised quote. Posters will merrily insist their interpretation of what was written trumps what was actually written.

The very worst comments I have read on MN are about SAHPs and Tory voters. Outright insults and taunts. I don't necessarily think these posts should be taken down but I do think posts should be moderated consistently. If we are taking down comments because they could be considered offensive then half of this forum will be gone. If nobody can question how anyone spends their money then this should be consistently applied to everyone. Guidelines need to be specific and clear.

XenoBitch · 03/05/2024 19:25

Bumpitybumper · 03/05/2024 19:13

Sorry but this is a completely inaccurate recollection of that thread. Nobody argued that the poster's son should 'stay at home and not do anything nice and normal'. The cinema trip in question would have cost over £100 and caused the son distress and the PA (so much so that they stopped working as the son's PA). It was merely pointed out that this trip sounded excessive in many ways and wasn't really sustainable as the only way the son could leave the house. Nobody suggested other alternatives shouldn't be explored or that the son should be left at home without the opportunity to do anything nice. It is this kind of mischaracterisation of what was actually written that is just so unhelpful.

You may well have other views on the necessity of the cinema trip and whether it was worth it. That's fine, but it's not ok to pretend things were written that simply weren't.

But it seems because someone is a tax payer (which everyone is), they seem to think they can comment and on how disabled people spend their money.

And it seemed in that case people were considering a cinema trip to be a luxury. I think it was the same thread where there was a discussion spanning several pages about whether or not a taxi was a luxury or necessity.

Bumpitybumper · 03/05/2024 19:13

XenoBitch · 03/05/2024 18:50

I can only imagine how upsetting it must be to read such things when you have a disabled child.
Some people do not think before they type.

On one thread, a poster said her disabled son gets taken on trips to the cinema with his PA, and that it can sometimes get expensive as he will sometimes refuse to get on a particular bus, so the PA is with him longer. She was told that going to the cinema was something that the taxpayer should not be funding.... as if he is just expected to stay at home and never do anything nice and normal.

I don't have kids, disabled or otherwise, but that really got to me.

Sorry but this is a completely inaccurate recollection of that thread. Nobody argued that the poster's son should 'stay at home and not do anything nice and normal'. The cinema trip in question would have cost over £100 and caused the son distress and the PA (so much so that they stopped working as the son's PA). It was merely pointed out that this trip sounded excessive in many ways and wasn't really sustainable as the only way the son could leave the house. Nobody suggested other alternatives shouldn't be explored or that the son should be left at home without the opportunity to do anything nice. It is this kind of mischaracterisation of what was actually written that is just so unhelpful.

You may well have other views on the necessity of the cinema trip and whether it was worth it. That's fine, but it's not ok to pretend things were written that simply weren't.

XenoBitch · 03/05/2024 18:50

Dollenganger333 · 03/05/2024 18:22

I'm sick of it too. I am sick of hearing from bigoted people who are so arrogant that they actually think they can judge how severe a child's care needs are when they only see minutes of that child's life a day.

I can only imagine how upsetting it must be to read such things when you have a disabled child.
Some people do not think before they type.

On one thread, a poster said her disabled son gets taken on trips to the cinema with his PA, and that it can sometimes get expensive as he will sometimes refuse to get on a particular bus, so the PA is with him longer. She was told that going to the cinema was something that the taxpayer should not be funding.... as if he is just expected to stay at home and never do anything nice and normal.

I don't have kids, disabled or otherwise, but that really got to me.

Dollenganger333 · 03/05/2024 18:24

LilyMumsnet · 03/05/2024 14:36

Hi all

We just wanted to let you know that we’re reading all your posts and will take a look at the threads you’ve highlighted.

We expect to see an increase in threads about PIP because it’s in the news but please remember to report anything you think we should see, using the report button.

I do really appreciate that you are listening. Thank you.

Dollenganger333 · 03/05/2024 18:23

I am also sick of people who only think disability is their uniformed, ignorant idea of what it means.

Dollenganger333 · 03/05/2024 18:22

I'm sick of it too. I am sick of hearing from bigoted people who are so arrogant that they actually think they can judge how severe a child's care needs are when they only see minutes of that child's life a day.

XenoBitch · 03/05/2024 18:20

IClaudine · 03/05/2024 15:51

Thanks for getting back to us @LilyMumsnet and @DawnMumsnet

I think there are other threads in addition to the ones I have flagged. @XenoBitch mentioned one I think. There is also another more general benefits bashing thread that was started last night and is so clearly a "plop and run" type.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/money-matters/5067183-friend-would-rather-stay-on-benefits?page=6

Found it!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5059224-to-be-frightened-about-the-governments-plans-for-benefits-reform?page=1

Is full now, but lots of awful posts on it too that triggered OP when she was just expressing her fears.

uncomfortablydumb53 · 03/05/2024 15:53

Well said
I have just signed the green paper telling Rishi Sunak the same thing about PIP reform!

IClaudine · 03/05/2024 15:51

Thanks for getting back to us @LilyMumsnet and @DawnMumsnet

I think there are other threads in addition to the ones I have flagged. @XenoBitch mentioned one I think. There is also another more general benefits bashing thread that was started last night and is so clearly a "plop and run" type.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/money-matters/5067183-friend-would-rather-stay-on-benefits?page=6

Page 6 | Friend would rather stay on Benefits | Mumsnet

Hi everyone I have a friend who is in her early 40s. She has 5 kids, eldest being 17 and youngest being 4. No disabilities in the family. Friends h...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/money-matters/5067183-friend-would-rather-stay-on-benefits?page=6

OP posts:
DawnMumsnet · 03/05/2024 14:59

IClaudine · 03/05/2024 11:24

Hi MNHQ - I do hope you are aware of this thread.

I had an idea of something very small and simple you could do.

When a benefits thread inevitably starts to go downhill and the usual "my neighbour’s son’s cousin’s wife climbs Mount Everest but gets PIP" lies start perhaps you could post a standard response in the way you do for certain other issues. Maybe something like:

"Just popping our heads around the door to remind people that the vast majority of benefit claimants are genuine. Remember that people in receipt of benefits may be reading this thread. Please keep the discussion factual and respectful."

Just to add, this is a good suggestion and we'll certainly discuss this and other ways in which we can be more proactive on threads to prevent them from being derailed.

We'll continue to work our way through the threads flagged in the opening post. We've already banned at least one poster who we felt was not here in good faith and we've also deleted a post (which has been referenced here), which on reflection we agree was not in the spirit of the site.

We do rely on your reports to let us know what's happening on the boards, and we want to make it absolutely clear that we don't ban people for reporting too much. If a poster is being deliberately inflammatory or is derailing a thread, please let us know so we can take the necessary action behind the scenes.

Above all, we're really sorry that so many of you have been upset by some of the responses on recent threads, when you already have so much to deal with.

Thanks again for posting this thread, @IClaudine

LilyMumsnet · 03/05/2024 14:36

Hi all

We just wanted to let you know that we’re reading all your posts and will take a look at the threads you’ve highlighted.

We expect to see an increase in threads about PIP because it’s in the news but please remember to report anything you think we should see, using the report button.

alloalloallo · 03/05/2024 13:13

TigerRag · 03/05/2024 10:05

Check if you can apply online. There's talk about it. But I'm not sure if it's still being piloted or has been rolled out

Thank you.

Unfortunately applying online isn’t available in my area yet. It would be fab if it was. Even if you could go online to request the form to be sent, it would be easier.

I assume it’s deliberate as having to with shitty behaviour just asking for the forms to be sent out probably puts a lot of people off even applying in the first place

3usernames · 03/05/2024 12:48

Read the Mumsnet corpus thread, I think they're otherwise engaged.

LameyJoliver · 03/05/2024 12:35

How long does it take to bloody respond? Ridiculous! Just remind everyone that disability bashing is not on and if you can't say anything nice or constructive, say nothing.
They are clearly worried abut alienating the fucking tory posters.