TO SAY Camerons Policies are in danger of getting all disabled people labelled as "Scroungers"

[ScousyFogarty]

That is a wicked thing do do and David Cameron beeds to apologise or more likely get one of his flunkies to say SORRY

I agree with your suggestion though of reviews carried out by medically qualified people that consider the whole range of medical evidence available as well as any improvements in the condition (I think improvements need to be considered as in most fraud cases I have read about, the person actually was entitled to it at the beginning, but didn't report improvements).

I also think alcholics and drug abusers shouldn't get DLA because they are alcoholics or drug abusers - obviously different if they have another disability or illness. At the moment people can qualify for DLA because many genuinely do have difficulty with everyday tasks, but the extra money really doesn't help them. Instead support should be provided - Supporting people funding used to do this, but much of this was cut in April.

I know the amount of alcoholics and drug abusers who get DLA directly as a result of this are small. But as well as not helping them, it does fuel negative public reaction against DLA.

Someone getting DLA should not also get carers allowance.

The amount of DLA for severely disabled people should be higher.

Excellent post acumen

Thing is Lesley my kids do not get the highest rate, despite being unable to wash and dress themselves, in one case feed himself. Because they have autism and it's unusual for those with autism to get high rate.

That also needs review.

Lesley33...I think you should concentrate on the abuses explained by many charities today; rather than going for your reform of the system (The govt have done their reform; and thats what the blazing row is now about)

Look up Gruniad front-page. thanks

acumen explains so eloquently many thanks . im reported for saying what i think becuase its the opposite of the other posters views i became angry becuse she was personally attacking me if you read (i know very long) thread , i also did for the most part call the two people offending all disabled people and yes i find people saying disabled people should not begat dcs VERY offensive and one poster made it obvious she agreed in principle to hiding disabled people away so as my sons autistic and my dh is a now disabled ex serviceman who faught to give her the rights she uses against me is the biggest insult anyone could ever portray .. call me rude words say im lazy good for nothing or a BCH do or say what you like to me i can take it but plese remember the disabled are often vunerable and can not defend themselves if you were saying simular things against minority races you would be in serious trouble but it appears disabled are sitting ducks and anyone can do or say what they like and we should just shrug and (id say walk but thats too ironic) hobble , wheel away im a mum for goodness sake you attack my child what do some people expect now back to sensible posters... im in awe of acumen we all agree there are people abusing the system BUT a very small % so why are they deciding to start with us ...yep survival of the fittest. and the biggest worry is they may get rid of appeals they have suggested and also are changing the goalposts so people like my son who does have joint pain but has a mental condition and that wont matter anymore regardless of the fact he wont even when an adult be able to walk to a bus stop alone or the shops without assistance or anywhere for that matter what happens when im not here any more? what if he has no one else to care for him , remember they will be having to do it with no financial help but would have to as i have give up work to do so and they may not if have a family of their own be able to do that so there we go back in time opening these awful places to dump our relatives,,, and were not far away from that happening again can you live with that? i cant

The Government is trying to reign in spending which is necessary but I can't help feeling that we shouldn't be asking the disabled to lose as much as I think they probably are in the public spending adjustments.

its such an emotive sbject and dear to my heart im sorry i keep digressing

yes, Smile, I would not trust the govt INQUIRY they tend to be holding operations. The govt are too dishonest to even admit that their policy is driven by money saving. All the experts know it is just that. Need secret filmingof the "system" from Panorama

A lot of the Panorama stuff is from before the coalition though isn't it? So imagine how much worse it'll get after the cuts.

so why dont they take off all the alcoholics and drug abusers no one advocates dla was invented for them it was not it was for people with physical and mental disabilities , i too personally dont think they belong in this categorey , but they will be taking it away from those exact people it was supposed to help 20% savings 1%fraud 19% genuine disabled people who have no other way of surviving and getting around its making our existance which was bad before now look increasingly bleak.

It's complex though smile, there are for example people with severe mental health issues who have perhaps self medicated through drugs and alcohol. Just because they have an addiction it doesn't mean that is all there is to it.

this is so true glitter but narrow minded people lump everyone in the same boat without knowing the complexities of the persons disability needs ect. ive no idea how to solve all these issues but leaving us to rot and bunging lots of disabled people who are vunerable into institutions and forgetting them is going backwards its not what my DH spent 20 years in the forces for thats for sure. what is the real answer?

As I say.... keep much of the current system with APPROPRIATE review. Not ATOS.

sorry if i came across uncaring im certainly not , i do realise all is not what it seems very often, people have physical and mental issues who are addicts too but it is to me a bit of a different in as much as maybe they should not be given money but much more physical help if the alcoholic i knew is anything to go by he will literally drink the money not use it constructively but i am no expert in any way on this subject so ill be quiet lol i dont want to upset someone whos in this position, you shouldnt talk about something you know so little about and id be guilty if i carry on

I don't think you do come across as uncaring at all.
Let's face it the spectrum of disability is that vast that even if you are dealing with one you're not going to know all the others.

Actually it's kind of like me saying 'as long as there is breath in my body my kids will not go into a home like those shown on Panorama last night' - anything could happen to make them need resi. Nobody has any guarantees. That makes it all the more terrifying.

I often wonder how David Cameron can sleep at night, how having had a disabled child and a father who I believe ended in a wheelchair.
yet here he is ripping the carpet away from the very people he shold want to help.
(sorry one of my keys doesn't work bt hope that makes sense)

Because it conflicts with his ideology, shoesy.

it did shoesy dont worry well i was shocked too but then again when you look at it and think well he could aford a private nurse/nanny private healthcare the most expensive equipment for his dc and he didnt have to physically do anything he paid someone else to do it he wont have got up at 4am to wipe bottoms or change beddinng he wasnt there at mealtimes to take his dc to appointments ect ect so come to think of it he has no idea whatsoever what having a disabled childs like in RL because unlike us who had to give up work to become all but a couple of pounds a week (unpaid carers) the couple of pounds i get carers btw i dont get to keep they take it off council tax benefit as its considered income its pointless getting it at all tbh . im sure mr cameron loved his dc no one disputes that but he didnt have to stay awake nights and stay home 24/7 caring for his unfortunate child so hes hardly the expert in fact i think thats exactly whats made him the opposite he thinks itd a piece of cake due to his own circumstances

smile I think you have a point, he probably lives in th kind of cloud cuckoo land where he thinks if he could do it anyone could, well we could with 24/7 help like he got. the man sickens me

If the aim of the reforms is to reduce those dependent on disability benefits (of all kinds) by 20%, that will still mean that the UK has a higher percentrage of people on such benefits than countries such as Holland and Australia. Countries which are considered socially progressive and attractive places to live. So how can it be that in Britain that there can be so many more people needing to claim disability benefits? It doesn't make sense.

I cannot see your objection, when you have described the disabilities involved, as they would not be affected by the cuts. It will surely only sift out those who are not genuinely in need, leaving a higher level of state provided benefit (and that is why it is not given out to everyone who claims but why it is measured) than in any other EU country.

Either that, or accept the ideology that Britain is a country with far higher levels of state benefit dependent people than any other country in the world, and that this figure will gradually increase as the measure of entitlement is not so heavily tested, as many posters on here seem to want.

I actually don't think that ideology serves disabled people too well in the long term.

Levels of benefits is another issue. Yes, benefits could be more generous, but I don't think there is even a moral case for argueing that limitless help should be provided by one sector of the population to the other. The line has to be drawn somewhere. People can only do so much.

smileandwave yes i find people saying disabled people should not begat dcs VERY offensive and one poster made it obvious she agreed in principle to hiding disabled people away so as my sons autistic

Yet again, I have said nothing of the kind. I most certainly do not believe that about autistic people. I consider that a very offensive view and would never say that, and I'm unaware of anyone else on this thread saying that either. Autistic people are very valuable to society in many, many ways. I find it a very uncomfortable thing to read in print and I wish you would not attribute such comments wrongly to me as I find them utterly disgusting.

I do admit I find it difficult to sympathise with people who constantly insult you and repeatedly and endlessly force their woes down other people's throats. Most of us have faced adversity in life, perhaps not of the same kind as you have, but I would hope that I deal with it in a way that doesn't offend other people. If you have been dealt a bad set of circumstances in life (and some of the posters on here seem to have been remarkably unlucky), then being offensive to other people, or blaming them, is not going to change that. Certainly more so if its understanding you want. If you don't want understanding or empathy, but just want the money, then fair enough.

I will remind you that the wording of the title of this thread is where most of your assumptions of what posters have said seems to come from.

Under ATOS they would be affected by the cuts.
I don't know why it's considered desirable to emulate other countries' failings towards the vulnerable.

I'm not opposed to heavy testing, as long as that is independent (which ATOS isn't) and provided by a specialist in the relevant field.

Who is forcing their woes down people's throats?
We are discussing a subject on topic. Our lives may be unpalatable to you but they exist.

I've insulted nobody. Unlike you who has been endlessly offensive.

Glitterknickaz I have actually extrapolated why some feel that some posters have what are very clost to Third Reich policies, without getting personal.

In your opinion, because it suits your arguement to say so. I am afraid that when you start claiming that it is unfair for other people to hold views (which have nothing to do with what you allege and are simply the views of the Governement democratically elected in this country), you are already losing the debate. You are saying that you cannot debate with someone who holds slightly different views from you without resorting to having them censored.

I could equally say that your views are akin to the miserable communist policies of Eastern Europe, to make everyone equal, which would be nonsense, but no less or no more nonsense than saying that my views are in some way abhorent because they do match your own.