Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

To think there is a definite surge in annoyance towards the disabled?

1000 replies

WarySwan · 03/12/2025 06:32

I have seen it in real life. Not just social media forums and news outlets where every other post seems to be about 'free money this for disabled' and 'free cars'.

My 2 children have autism. They get highest rate DLA. About £800 a month. We get respite care funded that costs the tax payer about £700 a month.

Just had an extension on our new build house, housing association, brand new bedroom and ensuite installed. Free of charge through the council.

Motability 7 seater car. 25 plate.

People seem to just see this and see the money. They do not see the costs that are present because of disability. The amount of time and resources it takes to keep 2 profoundly children at home.

They do not see that my children will need 24/7 care for life. 2-1 support in public. The constant cleaning and caring. Waking up at the crack of dawn, years on end. Cleaning smearing and endless washing. Endless marks on your body from a child who doesn't get that taking a chunk out of you will hurt that much and scar

Watching your eldest almost die as he can't speak a word or use a communication device. Meaning appendicitis went undetected until he was almost dying. The constant battle of keeping a cannula in his arm with hospital staff just not getting why a play therapist does not bloody cut it and he needs constant supervision that I cannot possibly do 24/7 without moving from the bedside. The weeks spend in recovery because of this.

If we do not or cannot provide this care, residential placements are about £40,000+ per month. Yes. Per month. It is eye watering in cost. That won't change anytime soon because social care is beyond shot to bits.

My children deserve the best life possible. And a dignified society should surely want to ensure this happens? Children who are not disabled and their parents have options. They have chances and doorways. Mine will never work. Never have a marriage or children, they won't even be able to cook a basic meal.

There is no overtime or upskilling for me. No situation where they fly the nest and I can focus on my career again. Unless they become some dangerous through no fault of their own that a 40k plus a month placement goes ahead as the alternative means I could die or be seriously injured, and that would mean they'd be at risk if I am literally unconscious on the floor.

They still deserve dignity and compassion. The chance of a good life. They are very happy currently. Good routines that are followed to a T. Safe at home because I have the resources to do it.

Care placement does not save money. Unfortunately. It would cost over ten times what I get in benefits.

I have seen so many mentions of people saying those on benefits should have no savings at all. Nothing. Really? You think my life isn't hard enough? You think I shouldn't be allowed a small nest of savings too?

When I finally drop down from caring, I will have next to no pension. After spending a lifetime ensuring the state doesn't have to take full responsibility for 2 adult men that will mean at least 4 paid members of staff are present at all times.

I am not just talking about MN. It is everywhere. Even 'funny' reels on Instagram targeted about how the disabled get this and that. How they should all drive a basic tiny car that has something written in bold to make sure everyone knows its a free car, as if they're really disabled, they'll use. That'll stop the chancers eh!

This is NOT about criticism towards PIP and DLA for things people deem questionable... even though they almost certainly dont have all the facts. This is about the blatant and not hidden disgust and begrudge of help to those with lifelong and profound disability

PEOPLE keep saying in black and white, no room for confusion in their words, that the disabled get too much. That it isn't fair.

I suppose this thread will get deleted. But a lot of views seem to be going unchallenged about the disabled that wouldn't be allowed if it was about something else that's suppose to be a protected characteristic. Seems to have quite a few comparisons with a certain country in Europe 80 or so years ago. When the hatred and deceit was being thrown around and brain washing people before not many years later, the public became okay with euthanasia of them.

Hell, I am sure we are already there for some. As I have seen with my own eyes, people commenting on MN and the likes of social media where their bloody name and pictures of themselves and their work can be traced, that euthanasia could be an option, ideally.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
CanSeeClearlyNowTheRainHasGone · 03/12/2025 21:00

Kirbert2 · 03/12/2025 20:32

Surely it's the same thing as someone would abort a healthy foetus due to say financial reasons but wouldn't kill their healthy 2 year old due to financial reasons?

It is. It's inconsistent.

But if you advocate for
A. Neither is acceptable
B. Both are acceptable
Then your view would be labelled as abhorrent.

I was asking how we came to that inconsistent position of total reverence for life and also disdain for life.

And how we are so intransigent about even theoretically discussing different options.

Zov · 03/12/2025 21:03

IncompleteSenten · 03/12/2025 21:00

My apologies. I assumed you were intelligent enough to know the point I was making.

It was pretty obvious @IncompleteSenten Flowers You were right though... That tired old (pointless) argument that you mentioned was raised. It's like talking to a brick wall in here sometimes!

IncompleteSenten · 03/12/2025 21:06

CanSeeClearlyNowTheRainHasGone · 03/12/2025 21:00

It is. It's inconsistent.

But if you advocate for
A. Neither is acceptable
B. Both are acceptable
Then your view would be labelled as abhorrent.

I was asking how we came to that inconsistent position of total reverence for life and also disdain for life.

And how we are so intransigent about even theoretically discussing different options.

That's because a foetus is not a baby. A foetus is a potential baby and therefore not the same as a child that has been born.

You can be pro-choice for women while believing that killing born people is wrong.

Life, at its developmental stages is, quite simply put, not equal. Or comparable. And it is perfectly reasonable to view and to treat those stages differently

a clump of cells is not equal to a ten year old.

Legobricksinatub · 03/12/2025 21:09

IncompleteSenten · 03/12/2025 21:00

My apologies. I assumed you were intelligent enough to know the point I was making.

You were using ‘forced birth’ to manipulate people into believing women have a choice that it would be reasonable for them to opt out of if they chose not to consent to it because women should have control of her own body. When, if you were being honest you would admit the only option is whether they give birth to a live baby or a dead one and that they are forced to give birth either way.

Zov · 03/12/2025 21:11

????? Confused

Robin2025 · 03/12/2025 21:12

Plainspoken · 03/12/2025 20:46

😂😂😂 love this so much

😅 Deleted again. It's ok, I didn't really mean it, I was just posing the question! Can anyone give me an answer (that isn't to do with any kind of moral objections), why we should not call someone who makes those kinds of posts, a 'pathetic little poundland fascist?' Obviously I am not advocating for calling someone that, I'm shocked anyone could ever think such a thing, but I just think it's really important, like, philosophically, that as a society we ask those kinds of questions.....

Legobricksinatub · 03/12/2025 21:13

IncompleteSenten · 03/12/2025 21:06

That's because a foetus is not a baby. A foetus is a potential baby and therefore not the same as a child that has been born.

You can be pro-choice for women while believing that killing born people is wrong.

Life, at its developmental stages is, quite simply put, not equal. Or comparable. And it is perfectly reasonable to view and to treat those stages differently

a clump of cells is not equal to a ten year old.

Edited

And a full term baby? How does that differ in the moments before and after birth?

StartingFreshFor2026 · 03/12/2025 21:13

CanSeeClearlyNowTheRainHasGone · 03/12/2025 21:00

It is. It's inconsistent.

But if you advocate for
A. Neither is acceptable
B. Both are acceptable
Then your view would be labelled as abhorrent.

I was asking how we came to that inconsistent position of total reverence for life and also disdain for life.

And how we are so intransigent about even theoretically discussing different options.

A) Plenty of people are completely pro life. I disagree wholeheartedly with pro-lifers but it's not all that unusual. B) Absolutely no one argues that both are morally acceptable because no one thinks it is OK to kill a healthy 2 year old for financial reasons.

The vast majority of us don't see that this poster's analogy is 'inconsistent' at all because we align with the legal view in the sense that we don't believe a foetus has a life or human rights but we do think a 2 year old does.

About 'And how we are so intransigent about even theoretically discussing different options' to extend the analogy further, if a mum had posted about the fact that she couldn't financially support her toddler and they were struggling to afford food etc, would it be acceptable to pose questions about the 'option' of killing her toddler because that used to happen in some ancient societies? Would it be OK for people to muse about how she should have forseen and planned for these financially difficulties and that perhaps we could ponder how much as a society we're willing to pay to feed her child and what the value of its life is?

IncompleteSenten · 03/12/2025 21:15

Legobricksinatub · 03/12/2025 21:09

You were using ‘forced birth’ to manipulate people into believing women have a choice that it would be reasonable for them to opt out of if they chose not to consent to it because women should have control of her own body. When, if you were being honest you would admit the only option is whether they give birth to a live baby or a dead one and that they are forced to give birth either way.

I assumed that people know how foetuses are delivered depending on what stage they are at.

My point was not about delivery.

Everyone knows what forced birth means. At least I thought they did. The issue of forced birth is quite well debated. It is when women are not allowed abortions and are forced to carry to term and give birth.

If you can't understand what I am saying, that's a you problem.

Plainspoken · 03/12/2025 21:17

CanSeeClearlyNowTheRainHasGone · 03/12/2025 21:00

It is. It's inconsistent.

But if you advocate for
A. Neither is acceptable
B. Both are acceptable
Then your view would be labelled as abhorrent.

I was asking how we came to that inconsistent position of total reverence for life and also disdain for life.

And how we are so intransigent about even theoretically discussing different options.

What are you still doing here??

People aren't arguing with you because you're interesting, it's because they don't want abhorrent arguments about their children to be left standing unchallenged on a public form. They've told you this, so many times. They are exhausted.

There is no need for you, personally, to have this discussion, much less in this forum. You are never going to be allowed to make decisions about the lives of vulnerable children. That is a discussion for ethics panels, people with expertise and compassion. You have neither.

If you want to cosplay being a philosopher, why not try another forum, or better still set up some kind of "philosophy in the pub night" in your local area. Or let me guess that you aren't so keen to deliver your morbid fixation with starving children, when it comes to in-the-flesh encounters.

IncompleteSenten · 03/12/2025 21:18

Legobricksinatub · 03/12/2025 21:13

And a full term baby? How does that differ in the moments before and after birth?

Seriously?

That's where you want to divert this discussion to? You think I don't know what you are doing?

Ok. before birth, it's not breathing.
After birth, it is.

If you need any further information may I recommend this

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me-MbPNwIPk&t=2s

Robin2025 · 03/12/2025 21:19

Plainspoken · 03/12/2025 21:17

What are you still doing here??

People aren't arguing with you because you're interesting, it's because they don't want abhorrent arguments about their children to be left standing unchallenged on a public form. They've told you this, so many times. They are exhausted.

There is no need for you, personally, to have this discussion, much less in this forum. You are never going to be allowed to make decisions about the lives of vulnerable children. That is a discussion for ethics panels, people with expertise and compassion. You have neither.

If you want to cosplay being a philosopher, why not try another forum, or better still set up some kind of "philosophy in the pub night" in your local area. Or let me guess that you aren't so keen to deliver your morbid fixation with starving children, when it comes to in-the-flesh encounters.

Very well said. 💐

IncompleteSenten · 03/12/2025 21:21

Robin2025 · 03/12/2025 21:19

Very well said. 💐

Indeed.
I have got to hide the thread now for the sake of my blood pressure.
I'm going to go see if my violent, disgusting, smelly, revolting waste of life wants to hang out and watch tv with me.
If he gets too much, I promise to put a pillow over his face until he stops moving.

Legobricksinatub · 03/12/2025 21:22

Most people are neither totally pro life or pro choice. Most people think there is a point at which abortion becomes unacceptable. For many this is when the baby is able to survive outside the womb. Few people support abortion of a healthy baby at term.

Killing of unwanted newborn children used to be widespread - indeed it has its own legal term ‘infanticide’. It still is in many cultures, especially of baby girls and disabled babies.

Kirbert2 · 03/12/2025 21:34

CanSeeClearlyNowTheRainHasGone · 03/12/2025 21:00

It is. It's inconsistent.

But if you advocate for
A. Neither is acceptable
B. Both are acceptable
Then your view would be labelled as abhorrent.

I was asking how we came to that inconsistent position of total reverence for life and also disdain for life.

And how we are so intransigent about even theoretically discussing different options.

I don't think it's inconsistent because a 2 year old toddler is very different from a foetus who can't even survive outside of the womb either at all or without intensive medical care.

Futurehappiness · 03/12/2025 21:37

Plainspoken · 03/12/2025 21:17

What are you still doing here??

People aren't arguing with you because you're interesting, it's because they don't want abhorrent arguments about their children to be left standing unchallenged on a public form. They've told you this, so many times. They are exhausted.

There is no need for you, personally, to have this discussion, much less in this forum. You are never going to be allowed to make decisions about the lives of vulnerable children. That is a discussion for ethics panels, people with expertise and compassion. You have neither.

If you want to cosplay being a philosopher, why not try another forum, or better still set up some kind of "philosophy in the pub night" in your local area. Or let me guess that you aren't so keen to deliver your morbid fixation with starving children, when it comes to in-the-flesh encounters.

Indeed. Hopefully most people even if they hold such vile sentiments as these, would be ashamed to state them irl. But it is OK to upset people on this thread thanks to the cloak of anonymity.

When my premature DS was born and fighting for his life in an incubator - when I was recovering from my emergency CS, we had had the scary prognosis about him and we hoped for support - a close family member told us that we needed to 'just let that poor little thing slip away'. The worst thing was, they thought they were being kind. Some other family members sympathised with what this person had said because 'it came from a good place'. Maybe some of these posters on here think the same.

I don't want to say what family member it was. Do you know why? Because I have so much second hand shame on their behalf that I feel I need to protect them, even on an anonymous thread. You can imagine my views about people who state things like this on here but are too cowardly to be identified.

Plainspoken · 03/12/2025 21:45

Robin2025 · 03/12/2025 21:12

😅 Deleted again. It's ok, I didn't really mean it, I was just posing the question! Can anyone give me an answer (that isn't to do with any kind of moral objections), why we should not call someone who makes those kinds of posts, a 'pathetic little poundland fascist?' Obviously I am not advocating for calling someone that, I'm shocked anyone could ever think such a thing, but I just think it's really important, like, philosophically, that as a society we ask those kinds of questions.....

I thought it was "snivelling little Poundland fascist?" It's important that we get this right - let's have a long and tedious debate about it. I know it wasn't the original topic of the thread, but anyone who objects just hates philosophy.

Presumably this comment won't be deleted, because I'm not actually calling anyone a snivelling little Poundland fascist, I'm just enjoying writing the phrase snivelling little Poundland fascist, because it's great and I hope it enters the popular lexicon.

Robin2025 · 03/12/2025 21:46

IncompleteSenten · 03/12/2025 21:21

Indeed.
I have got to hide the thread now for the sake of my blood pressure.
I'm going to go see if my violent, disgusting, smelly, revolting waste of life wants to hang out and watch tv with me.
If he gets too much, I promise to put a pillow over his face until he stops moving.

💐 I'm so sorry for all the awful things you and all the other parents of disabled children have had to read today. This thread has been a new low for mumsnet. Fwiw, I think all your children are valuable beyond measure, and thoroughly deserve every single bit of support they need to live their best lives. I hope you and your DS have a good night. 💜

ThisOldThang · 03/12/2025 21:46

whatsnewpussycat34 · 03/12/2025 20:29

A true anxiety and panic disorder is completely debilitating.

I’m not referring to people who feel sweaty in a crowd, or don’t like using the phone, I mean a real intrusive thought, depersonalisation, incoherent, suicidal bitch of an illness.

There brain is needed for every function of the body, if that’s fucked, then may god help you.

Whst about schizophrenia? You can’t see than on imaging, or psychosis.

How would you differentiate between people with a genuine panic or anxiety disorder and those people that lie or exaggerated their symptoms to qualify for PIP? Can the country afford to pay 99 fakers, just to make sure that the one genuine person gets the money?

With regards to schizophrenia, perhaps if the country wasn't spending so much on PIP, it could afford more secure mental units to properly treat the people you mention?

Kirbert2 · 03/12/2025 21:48

Futurehappiness · 03/12/2025 21:37

Indeed. Hopefully most people even if they hold such vile sentiments as these, would be ashamed to state them irl. But it is OK to upset people on this thread thanks to the cloak of anonymity.

When my premature DS was born and fighting for his life in an incubator - when I was recovering from my emergency CS, we had had the scary prognosis about him and we hoped for support - a close family member told us that we needed to 'just let that poor little thing slip away'. The worst thing was, they thought they were being kind. Some other family members sympathised with what this person had said because 'it came from a good place'. Maybe some of these posters on here think the same.

I don't want to say what family member it was. Do you know why? Because I have so much second hand shame on their behalf that I feel I need to protect them, even on an anonymous thread. You can imagine my views about people who state things like this on here but are too cowardly to be identified.

I'm sorry you had to hear that.

I had the same from a family member when my son was critically ill. Especially when they learned he'd had a prolonged cardiac arrest and I was told in the consultants exact words ''if he does survive, he isn't going to be the same boy he was before''.

I no longer have a relationship with that person and other family members 'feel bad' for that person. Not for me for them telling me at the lowest, worst, scariest, awful point in my life that I should just let my son die because his life would no longer be worthy.

Robin2025 · 03/12/2025 21:53

Plainspoken · 03/12/2025 21:45

I thought it was "snivelling little Poundland fascist?" It's important that we get this right - let's have a long and tedious debate about it. I know it wasn't the original topic of the thread, but anyone who objects just hates philosophy.

Presumably this comment won't be deleted, because I'm not actually calling anyone a snivelling little Poundland fascist, I'm just enjoying writing the phrase snivelling little Poundland fascist, because it's great and I hope it enters the popular lexicon.

Ah yes, you're quite right! How could I have forgotten!? 😅 Perhaps we should discuss the linguistic and semantic distinctions between 'snivelling little poundland fascists' and 'pathetic little poundland fascists,' and what the specific reasons are that we should not call people each of those?

TheSpiritofDarkandLonelyWater · 03/12/2025 21:53

ThisOldThang · 03/12/2025 21:46

How would you differentiate between people with a genuine panic or anxiety disorder and those people that lie or exaggerated their symptoms to qualify for PIP? Can the country afford to pay 99 fakers, just to make sure that the one genuine person gets the money?

With regards to schizophrenia, perhaps if the country wasn't spending so much on PIP, it could afford more secure mental units to properly treat the people you mention?

People that have the severe end of mental disorders are under services and their symptoms are observed. They are not faking anything. They fake being well because they dont want to be sectioned.

Secure mental units do not fix anyone. All mental health units just stabilise people so they are ready to be in he community again. schizophrenia is a life long and severe illness. You can never cure it. I know people with it and they will never work.

ForWittyTealOP · 03/12/2025 21:55

ThisOldThang · 03/12/2025 21:46

How would you differentiate between people with a genuine panic or anxiety disorder and those people that lie or exaggerated their symptoms to qualify for PIP? Can the country afford to pay 99 fakers, just to make sure that the one genuine person gets the money?

With regards to schizophrenia, perhaps if the country wasn't spending so much on PIP, it could afford more secure mental units to properly treat the people you mention?

Interested as to your linking of schizophrenia and "secure mental units" (sic). Would you like to expand?

Could you also expand on how you reached the ratio of 99 "fakers" to one genuine claimant? And what legislation would you change to make the health and benefit budgets interchangeable?

There's a lot to talk about in your short post.

Robin2025 · 03/12/2025 21:59

Futurehappiness · 03/12/2025 21:37

Indeed. Hopefully most people even if they hold such vile sentiments as these, would be ashamed to state them irl. But it is OK to upset people on this thread thanks to the cloak of anonymity.

When my premature DS was born and fighting for his life in an incubator - when I was recovering from my emergency CS, we had had the scary prognosis about him and we hoped for support - a close family member told us that we needed to 'just let that poor little thing slip away'. The worst thing was, they thought they were being kind. Some other family members sympathised with what this person had said because 'it came from a good place'. Maybe some of these posters on here think the same.

I don't want to say what family member it was. Do you know why? Because I have so much second hand shame on their behalf that I feel I need to protect them, even on an anonymous thread. You can imagine my views about people who state things like this on here but are too cowardly to be identified.

I'm so sorry. What a cruel thing for them to say. 💐

Legobricksinatub · 03/12/2025 22:01

PIP stops if you are in hospital for more than 28 days

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.