3K a month benefits

[applecrumble03]

I had made a previous post which I believe had been taken down over a lady giving me £10 for no reason, in no way was that post to brag about my benefits I had stated how much I get a month to show I’m not struggling for money so the only reason can be I was judged on my appearance and then someone had asked if this is benefits which I said yes as I have no reason to lie. I have read a few notifications on my drop down and people saying I’m doing this to wind people up and there is no way I get 3K a month benefits, I was asking a genuine question. Some comments were quite rude. So here is how -

Universal credit for me and 2 kids plus LCWRA
£1775 - my rent gets taken straight from this I get paid £1225
high rate adult disability payment £734
Child disability payment x2 £868
Child benefit £42 a week
Scottish child payment £213

minus rent £3208 paid directly to me per month.

Now no this is not fair to people who have to work. However they are able bodied people and it’s not my fault I would much rather be healthy and live a normal life.

Already answered that.

I tagged Pinkandcake by mistake and apologised for that.

I didn’t directly call a GF (a not uncommon term used on MN). I said “Only a GF would suggest all motabilty cars should be hi vis yellow.”

Good idea. The motability logo would be great advertising.

No you didnt ,you just said for maximum care and consideration, which all drivers need to be doing at all time ,you haven't said why you think ,drivers should be especially careful around mobility car, s.

As you pointed out when I gave examples, ‘may’, not all. Many won’t be frail. Even if they are frail, that doesn’t mean they need a car in hi-vis yellow. Why would a car need to be hi-vis yellow just because the disabled person is being transported as a passenger rather than driving?

Everyone should be driving with maximum care and attention regardless of what other road users there are. If they can’t do that, they shouldn’t be driving.

Isn’t that obvious. Give them room to manoeuvre and load / unload wheel chairs, easy to check disabled bays are not being abused etc etc etc.

No, it wouldn’t say anything about the use of disabled parking bays. You can be eligible for a blue badge and not be eligible for a motability vehicle and vice versa. Also some who are eligible for a blue badge and a motabilty vehicle may not take up a motabilty car.

Some with a motabilty vehicle don’t need extra space. Some without a motability vehicle do.

Perhaps Hi Vis is impractical, but adding the motability branding on the doors and bonnet would work. It would both advertise the scheme and warn other road users.

Not really first of all if they are loading and un loading wheelchairs they wouldn't be driving
Secondly somone might be entitled to a blue badge space but not a mobility card Thirdly not everyone who has a mobility car has a physical disability, and yet are still entitled to a mobility car and a blue badge
And lastly we already have a blue badge scheme to ensure that only those who have a blue badge use the relevant parking space we dont need to humiliate ,people because they are disabled.

Again, why do others need warning?

Why stop at cars? Why not have anyone claiming PIP wear a hi-viz tabard so people like you everyone else can shame them be more "careful" around them.

They don't.

Someone is bored tonight!

@PinkFruitbat you do realise that ALL drivers, irrelevant of disability, have to pass the same driving test as everyone else, and therefore have to hold the same driving standards? Why do we need to single them out as something to be ‘aware’ of?!

They could also ring a bell ,just in case people dont immediately see the high vis🤔

You may not agree but that’s no reason to resort to this
Explanation and discussion are so much more beneficial

Anyone who has been on these types of threads previously knows explanation and discussion alone doesn’t work when others are posting ableist nonsense about things they don’t understand. I have also explained why their posts are wrong and inaccurate.

Interesting you have taken issue with my post but not with the posts demonising disabled people.

There have been more than enough explanations, and discussions regarding the Motability scheme. Users of the service, are under no obligation to have to keep justifying their reasons for benefiting from a service, that is there for them to access, if eligible.

Agree
and I support the scheme
just not the name calling if someone doesn’t.

Re your last para
I didn't need to enough posters were already doing that and know the details more than me ( of note I support the scheme )

Right so you are happy to not call out those demonising disabled people. The fact others have also challenged them shouldn’t mean someone else doesn’t also challenge them, yet challenged me for calling them out.

Again, I didn’t directly call anyone a GF. I said “Only a GF would suggest all motabilty cars should be hi vis yellow.” A subtle but important difference for those who have been on MN long enough.

Long term mumsnetter here
Im well aware having been on the CEM threads for a long time how people avoid deletion and PAs

Its been discussed at length

If it wasn’t a PA then apologies.
If it was then it doesnt encourage constructive discussion and clearly the poster hasn’t been enlightened perhaps due to the language used.

I’ve said my peace all of which is obvious

It wasn’t PA. It was truthful. It is surprising a ‘long term mumsnetter’ didn’t know what GF was.

As explained by me and pp, explanation and discussion don’t work on threads like these. The poster wouldn’t have been ‘enlightened’ by anything anyone explained or said.

Whilst entitled to continue to benefit from the service I am equally entitled to question its merits and design. For instance I was most pleased to see Mercedes no longer a Motability option. This is a step in the right direction but more can be done to limit the scheme so that it costs the taxpayer less. With the scheme costing £3.5bn an one in five of all new cars bought in the UK via the scheme it is clearly out of control.

The removal of brands seen as premium brands is nothing but a PR stunt to appease those members of society who are ignorant to how the scheme actually works. There are many cars on the scheme that have more expensive APs than those premium brands that have been removed. The cost of the mobility element (which is either paid to the person, paid to motabilty, or in a small minority of cases paid part and part) doesn’t change with the removal of the premium brands because the mobility element doesn’t fund the APs.

There are still some Mercedes-Benz vehicles on the scheme.