Seven medals but now they want my benefits.

[carernotasaint]

blacktrianglecampaign.org/2012/08/28/seven-medals-but-now-the-tories-want-my-benefits-british-paralympic-gold-medalist-tara-flood-speaks-out/

Also the government diesnt need to give £125 million a year to sport - clearly ra doing fine on lottery funding

We don't need to give aid to countries that then give aid to other countries (we do)

No, let's leave H&S legislation in place and confront those people who use it as an excuse for not answering a simple question.

crazy isn't. I understand aid to poor countries although tbh if we are so poor we can't support our most vulnerable, we shouldn't be sending it to others.

The royal family has nothing to do with DLA at all. The country made a large profit out of the royal estates for decades. Security costs would be the same if there was an elected head of state or not and compared to equivalent costs for heads of state eg. France the UK costs are cheap.

Lottery Funding is for good causes like sport, culture etc. so that the costs from central government funding are ar less. If people don't like sport getting the funding don't buy a ticket. And if you prefer a different cause then give your money to that remembering of course that depending on the charity, 80% to 10% of your donation may go to actually doing good depending on how greedy or efficient the charity execs are and of course you won't have the 1 in 14 million chance of winning the lottery jackpot.

Come on niceguy, you know perfectly well that the government is making an active choice to cut Disability Living Allowance. Government spending covers thousands of different budget lines and they have the option of raising revenue to protect essential spending - they don't have to pick on the most vulnerable members of society. They are choosing to do it. Just as they chose to cut the top rate of tax. While having the cheek to pretend to celebrate the Paralympics, fgs.

thank you Edam, very well put

thank you!

The support against the cuts is really picking up now. Just seen a tweet from the actor Phil Davis (Whitechapel) asking people to sign the petition.

Edam, if DLA was the only 'budget line' being cut then I'd be totally with you.

But the fact is that the government is cutting everywhere. I don't think I have to post links to that fact. Virtually every department has faced cuts/restrictions/freezes, call it what you will.

These have been done out of necessity. The changes we're talking about here were started by Labour and continued by the Tory/LibDems. So it seems across the political spectrum there is a realisation that the status quo is not sustainable. It's notable that although Labour are opposing everything, they're not proposing turning back the clock on this one. In fact thinking about it they oppose everything but have not said one thing they'd repeal if/when they get back in power.

To call it an active choice and that the government is choosing to pick on the disabled is akin to saying Greece/Spain/Ireland are picking on the vulnerable by cutting their budgets. It's simply disingenuous.

It does get silly in here when people insist that the government hate the vulnerable as if there is only one small section of society that is feeling the effect of this recession.

People need to realise that cuts to have to be made, and it doesn't take a genius to work out that the people who are going to be most affected by the cuts are people who use the most state resources. That doesn't mean there's some hidden agenda to be mean to disabled people. I can see how it might feel like that to those who are affected, but I really don't believe that anyone is choosing to only pick on the most vulnerable members of society.

Oh look another Atos fuck up Surprise surprise.

Except that IDS has stated that he aims to reduce the bill by 20% using ATOS. A firm that has been taken to court in some states of the US for breaching human rights, and is barred from practice in other US states as well as a few other countries.
Of course being declared fit for work when someone very obviously isn't is going to engender feelings of animosity toward a government that appears to reward the extremely rich and not the extremely poor.
Most people do accept that there are cuts being made elsewhere, although again, not affecting the wealthy, eg. tax increases for those in the higher brackets, apart from on the most expensive houses. (Ridiculous)!
However, if you are very poor and you know full well and unqualified person whom you have never met, is likely to victimise you, bully you and make a decision regarding a condition of which they have little or no experience; how would you feel? Imagine being the woman interviewed not too long ago, on being asked how she had been and replying that she had been feeling suicidal, the interviewer from ATOS asked why she wasn't dead then?
Now, put yourself in the position of somebody having to beg for the food on your table or the drugs you need. That is what ATOS is doing.

Why dose that article not mention that the benefits were stopped last February but she only started Chemo etc. last May so clearly she may well have been fit enough at the ATOS assessment.

The government cut the top rate of tax while employing a disreputable company to throw disabled people off benefits. They aren't bothering to hide their agenda, it's a blatant attack on the most vulnerable people.

Using ATOS is clearly not a good thing, I don't think anyone can realistically argue that they are making a good job of these assessments.

But that doesn't mean that cuts shouldn't be made and that assessments shouldn't be done.

Wealthy people already pay 45% tax. It is as unfair to penalise them for success as it is to penalise disabled people for being disabled.

well this article from March says she was being treated.

Maybe she was receiving oral chemo - that didn't count as affecting ability to work, not sure whether it does now. I don't think herceptin or radiotherapy counts either. Because of course you'll find an employer willing to take you on while you're undergoing treatment for cancer, that just doesn't happen to be delivered by IV.

ffs you can not compare being wealthy to being disabled.
wht an odd comparison

this article explains why someone undergoing breast cancer treatment will score zero points it's the wrong type of treatment. FFS. Was this assessment put together by someone with any medical training at all?

Wealthy people already pay 45% tax. It is as unfair to penalise them for success as it is to penalise disabled people for being disabled.

Although a decent society might decide that it's better that those earning over £150,000 pay more to support those who through no fault of their own are at the bottom of the pile. Rather than giving them a tax cut whilst at the same time refusing disabled people benefits because they're on the wrong type of cancer treatment, or despite having no legs have hands so what are they moaning about. Bearing in mind that quite a few Atos offices have no disabled access - so they couldn't work there

But they are paying more Saintly. They are paying 45% to support these who no fault of their own are at the bottom of the pile, as you put it.

If they were paying nothing, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but they are paying what I woud consider to be a fair share. Apart from thise who are avoiding tax, but that is a separate issue.

But they were paying more, and the choice was made to give a cut to them whilst taking benefits of those with disabilities.

I have friends who were in the 50% tax bracket. I have disabled friends who are having services and benefits cut - believe me I know which need the money more.

*off

Internet ate my response. Will retype. Bottoms!