to think that none of the Benefit Frothers..

[fanjoforthemammaries7850]

will be man enough to read this article and admit they may have been wrong and misled..

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/05/benefit-cuts-fuelling-abuse-disabled-people

you can"t just blame the media, we have a government who have labelled disabled people as scroungers.
so the knock on affect is that you have a lot of very jealous people who then sn bash, as seen on mn.

I'm not missing the point, I agree with what you just wrote. That article states that disablism has increased in the last year, and that could be because of hostile and incorrect coverage of disability benefits.

I have no reason not to believe what the article is saying.

The point I'm making is that you started this thread by saying that 'benefit frothers' might (or might not) admit that they were wrong and misled. I am probably someone that could be described by some on here as a 'benefit frother' because I have said I support some of the reforms. But I don't see how I must have been wrong all of a sudden because disablism has increased.

If disablism has increased then it will be down to misinformation in the media, and possibly down to people feeling angry and frustrated that they are suffering financially. Clearly that's not a excuse. Disablism and supporting some benefit cuts are not the same thing.

i don't think you are a frother.

By frothers meant those who go on about people getting so much for pretending to be disabled, for looking fine but having blue badges, for never working because they get "so much more on the sick"..etc etc...think Plasma tellies.

or..99% of the people who post comments on Daily Mail articles about benefits.

Who, sadly, will undoubtedly never read the Guardian article.

Which is very sad :(

also someone I will not name who said they would abort a disabled child as we have a responsibility not to have a child who "bleeds society dry". These sort of attitudes are being fuelled by the media and Government.

There is also the issue on Mumsnet that people don't reads posts properly.

You might say you don't agree with certain benefit payments, or warn people not to get too complacent as the govt is untrustworthy and might pull the plug at any moment and people assume you disagree with anyone getting any benefits at all - even if you specifically say that certain groups (in the context of this thread people with disabilities, visible or otherwise, and their carers).

This starts a series of rants against you as a benefits frother, or sn basher as people get themselves worked up at a statement that does not exist in the first place.

I have seen, and experienced this many times on MN and I thinks it fuels the fire that many more (not saying there are none) MNers are sn and disability bashers than there are.

I think there are probably more who don't say anything (thankfully). So I just hope people will at least read the article. And possibly contrast it with the Daily Hate one too.

Ok, fair enough Fanjo! maybe I put myself in a catergory where I don't belong, because I certainly don't hold views that are that extreme. My opinions must be extreme enough though, because I have been called names on here because of them.

Agree with that Takeresponsibility.

Disablism and supporting some benefit cuts are not the same thing.

It's just frankly unbelievable that you think the bar is set too low for DLA, with the amount of evidence needed and the conditions for it.

and where do you get your idea of how "low" the bar is? From the media? or have you extensively researched it?

No, sixlostmonkeys, it doesn't.

I disagree with people who are capable of working having more income and less essential outgoing than people that work, and with the cap that has recently been discussed I have openly supported that on here.

I have no idea how you think that means I must be disablist. I don't support cuts to DLA or the change to PIP, I don't know enough about the criteria for ESA to be able to form a valid opinion. I don't think enough support is given to people who are disabled, either financially or socially.

I do think that HB should be limited for healthy people though. I don't think that people should have a right to choose where they live when they are paying nothing towards that themselves.

They are two completely separate opinions and discussions.

Well..my main feeling on this is, people are entitled to their opinions, but please do your own research before forming them (i.e. if you want to know more about ESA) and don't get your info from the Daily Mail (not directing this at anyone)...which was the point of this post.

I think people don't KNOW enough about the welfare system and so are willing to believe misconceptions like those printed about the Motability scheme by the Daily Mail, hence the increase in disablism.

i did not say you were judging ME, I am not on DLA, my DD is. You'd be struggling to judge her as being undeserving of it too.

I was just asking where you got your info from, is all. Maybe you have read the form, but lots do not, and think things like "you just go to your GP and tell them you are stressed and you will get DLA".

sorry kitchenroll, I assumed you meant you agree with the cuts to the benefits for those with disabilities (as this discussion is about disability benefits)
You are right, cuts to HB etc does not directly point at those with disabilities.
apologies.

I'd assume you are not the types to go and abuse disabled people in the street..but lots of the wider population are, and its increasing, scarily.

if DLA is so "easy" to get, why do hospital consultants take the forms so seriously, IME they personally review the medical notes before providing the medical information.

The things that I have opinions on, I do know about. Like I said, if I don't know enough about something I won't offer an opinion, and if I do, I'm open to changing my mind. Which I have done from reading things on here.

DLA happens to be something I do know about and I agree that there are too many people that believe absolute crap about the Motability scheme. But I agree with BB too that there probably are people recieving DLA that shouldn't, but then I think that there are probably more people that could successfully claim and dont.

I find the statistic that is often quoted about fraud rates of DLA very misleading. I have read on her many time that it's less than 1%, 0.6% or something like that, and that is used to bash people about the head with is they question DLA. I don't see how an accurate statistic can ever be formed about something like fraud rates DLA because of the very nature of it.

Thanks lostmonkeys.

sorry, got sidetracked by the usual arguments when it's not directly relevant to the thread. let's hope that the police are sufficiently staffed to take all these recent hate crimes seriously .