Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

[FineDamBeaver]

It's all just sinking in, and the other political threads are too eloquent for what I want to express this morning.

Oh tits. This is rubbish.

That the Tories are the party...

need more coffee!

Can I suggest people being sanctioned for attending job interviews arranged by the job centre see a legal aid lawyer with a public law contract? It is so clearly irrational that I suspect a simple pre-action letter would sort it out. If there is evidence of this as a widespread practice, it may be possible to take something in the nature of a class action to challenge the policy as a whole.

icimoi due to legal aid cuts most people cannot get any legal assistance without the ability to pay. Legal aid still exists for criminal matters but is very limited. It no longer exists for civil matters in most cases (which writing letters about benefit cuts would be).

And there are massive queues for the CAB too, down to I believe more cuts and staff shortages.

I believe your local MP may be required to assist you though?

But terrible situation [re. job centre] and one I could fully believe due to my own recent dramas with a government department [Tax Credits]. My MP [Labour!] helped thank god and it is now sorted. But very stressful.

There is an appeal process. But it is written appeals only, so fine if you are well educated and well able to put your case. not so good if you have any kind of difficult expressing yourself. It can also take 2-4 weeks to get a decision.

So it could easily be 4-6 weeks with no money.

So it's not hard to see how people end up using foodbanks.

Councils used to have dumping areas for problem families in council housing. My first teenage boyfriend lived in one. His mum was an alcoholic and held regular loud parties.
It was extremely difficult for kids there to get jobs because all the local employers knew if you lived there, you came from a problem family. My boyfriend had to join the army to get a job. He has worked ever since coming out of the army.

Bishop, I really don't know what you are talking about. I don't even know you. Stop making such silly statements regarding who you really think I am!

Ok I'll apologise for that. Because I've just seen the person I was writing about on the thread under another name. Very similar views, though.

Thank you Bishop. I only post under one name. I know we dont all agree with each other. Some of those threads become very boring when everyone does (and worse pats each other on the back!)

I am absolutely not a high flyer and certainly dont earn 6 figure salary. I absolutely need to work because we had big ambitions for our children. No SAHM options for me and I will reveal it hasnt been easy at all. There have been many times when I have thought and dreamed about giving up the job due to its stressful nature. Think clients, local government/health authorities etc. We didnt have any options for childcare from parents. Too old and live too far away. They also have their own lives to live quite rightly.

I have a very disbaled nephew. He gets everything he needs under the circumstances. His parents know what can be claimed and is available. I wouldnt begrudge a penny of the money to them.

You can probably tell I am right wing and people like me are often chased off threads and accused of being uncaring. we really arent. We dont read the Daily Mail and allow them to dicate their view to us.

Hillingdon how do propose to help people who work long hours but those hours don't pay enough to live on and therefore claim working tax credit, something that costs far more than Jobseekers or Income Support?

I have a very disbaled nephew

Do you mean, you have a nephew who has severe disabilities? Shouldn't your nephew have a disability rather than being labeled a disabled child?
I hoped that an educated person who works within local govt / with health authorities would understand the difference in those terms and use the less offensive one.

Just to clarify:

Person first, disability second, not the other way around!

If you want to be seen
as more caring, Hillingdon, be more caring. It's quite easy. My 5 year old manages it fine.

and scumeron blames the lib dems for all the failings and stuff from the last 5 years ffs.

as for Superexcited, don't be so judgy.

Person first, disability second, not the other way around!

Says who? This is a serious question. It's the first time I've ever heard of this. (Sorry to derail thread).

Says those who campaign for disability rights and for people with disabilities to be seen as a person first. It isn't a new thing, it has been around for a while.
I'm not being judgy, it is quite well known that most people with disabilities prefer not to be called a disabled person and prefer the term 'person with disabilities'. some people don't mind, but many do and people working in health should be aware of the difference. I wouldn't pull somebody on it who didn't work in a relevant role as they would have no way of knowing.

www.disabilityaction.org/centre-on-human-rights/human-rights-and-disability/united-nations-convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/

This article from disability action uses the term persons with disabilities and children with disabilities throughout. It doesn't state that this is the correct term but they clearly don't use the term 'disabled person' as neither they nor the UN convention of rights see it as the correct term. Many people with disabilities or parents of children who have disabilities are not fond of the term 'disabled person'.
You could always ask on the special needs section to gauge what parental opinion is on the matter.
Like I said, I don't expect everyone to know the difference in these terms but I would expect somebody who works in a relevant role to understand that there is a difference.

We need to get things done in the next 5 years now the disadvantaged have a real chance because they have the Tories behind them which they would not have done under Labour. It will be good. Most people agree too which is why the Tories got in.

'Most' didn't agree; only 37% of those who bothered to vote.

Disability Rights UK refer to themselves an disabled people. And the British Paralympic Association reveres to disabled athletes. I would always take the lead of the person or organisation I am working with, but it can vary.

This hair splitting about 'disabled people'/'people with disabilities' is why we can't win a sodding election. It's all gesture politics.

I'm classed as having a disability/being disabled under the Equalities Act. I don't give a flying fuck which one I'm called.

Super - I think that has told you. The fact is I have a nephew with serious health issues. How I chose to state it on a forum really had nothing to do with you....

You can make these sound bites and as a previous poster says wonder where it all went wrong for you.

Uncertain under the new rules the Tories are going to bring in for strike ballots, 37% of the eligible voters voting to strike will not be enough. It's ironic. Good enough to elect a government but not for industrial action.

Of course they are, Giddy. The rich always load the dice so that they don't lose.