George Osborne Gets Booed Handing Medals at the Paralympic Athletics Medal Ceremony

[ttosca]

The nation boos at the Tory scum:

Sammy - what enabled your choice to give up paid work? A partner with a high enough income to support the whole family, I presume? Housing that you can afford on one income?

The need to care for a disabled child adds a financial cost that other parents do not need to address. It can often be the tipping point between managing and not managing. I am really lucky - I can negotiate to reduce my contract by 50% for 9 months at a time when DS needs intensive support - that cuts out our savings (inc pension) and holiday for that year, and because of the very exacting nature of DLA we get neither DLA mobility nor carers allowance. As I say, we're lucky in that it doesn't tip us into ruin- but on a London house-price mortgage, we can't manage on one salary. It isn't aquestion of not wanting to care for your loved family but the significant impact on your family finances.

For some of us it's a lifelong commitment as well. I have completely and utterly sacrificed my own standard of living and my freedom in life to care for my daughter. I love her dearly but the impact her disability has had on our life is enormous. Carers should be recognised for the JOB that they do anyway, it is a flipping job. In our it's a 24 hopurs a day, 7 days a week job, hospital appointments, admissions, operations, not to mention the basic level of care. I don't think many parents get up in the night to a 13 year old and have to change their bedsheets and bathe them and get them calmed and changed again and all the bloody rest of it. Being a carer is seriously limiting to all areas of your life and the financial impact of that is huge. i think the two thousand I get in carers allowance a year does not make up for the fact at all that i could be earning 40k+ and be able to have a lie in and whatever other people do who have teenagers

I am not resentful of caring, i am resentful that people judge me because I claim carers allowance when it doesn't even begin to cover the sacrifices I make in order to care

As well, it really pisses me off when people go on about 'the disabled' and their carers taking more out of the economy than they put in. If I was to say have a nervous breakdown and become unable to care for my daughter it would cost the taxpayer over 100k p/a in specialist schooling alone. Carers save the economy millions if not billions a year due to caring.

So true OwlLady. My mother was my full time carer when I was a lot younger, the amount of people who assumed because I could walk and 'looked normal' so she was merely a sponge makes me so extremely angry.

I haven't read back through this thread too far because the way it has turned makes me want to cry. Heartless people that think poverty is self-inflicted.

Illness, disability, chaotic complex needs, addiction, mental illness, bereavement, caring responsibilities, low employment opportunities, the rising cost of living, redundancies, domestic violence..... there is a very, very long list of why people need support from the state, and it is not laziness. Many of these things can happen to anyone at any time, most are more likely to happen to those who are already disadvantaged.

I've worked with people with complex needs who have even described themselves as lazy because they can't find the motivation and confidence to find suitable work. This 'lazy' label does nothing to help them to examine the roots of their ills - usually childhood trauma and chaos, followed by low confidence, poor performance at school, addiction, etc. These are normal and intelligent people who are very damaged. If people knew some of the background stories of, for example, obnoxious street drunks they would count their f*cking blessings and wonder if they would be the same 'self-sufficient', 'self-motivated', judgemental stingy arses they are today if they had endured such an appalling start.

I'd still like to know what you think the best interests of the disabled are, Xenia, and how the political right are demonstrating that they have those interests at heart?

Also, DLA isn't about having to live a threadbare life the majority have to fall back on during temporary unemployment, DLA is supposed to give disabled people a dignified life. It is supposed to make this harsh world a better, fairer world for everyone.

It seems these heartless tories on this thread want to bring back the workhouse with repeated 'moral spanking' of the unfortunate.

I honestly think the people who berate those who claim disability living allowance have absolutely NO IDEA how much products and services for those with disabilities cost. It really doesn't go very far. yes, it's a lifesaver but it's very much needed. I have to run my washing machine and tumble dryer three times a day because of my daughters disability for example, we have to have the heating on almost constantly in winter due to her poor circulation and health needs, have to buy specialised equipment and clothing. It all adds up to a hefty price even if you are only looking at the basics

Fuel for transport, parking fees at the hospital, days off work due to sickness and appointments, incontinence support, specialised footwear, suitable wheelchair because the nhs ones are often inappropriate, time to organise prescriptions, repeat gp appointments, food costs due to diet, not to mention bloody obsessions with things (!) the amount of money i have had to spend on things like lights, stuff that has to be repaired, windows, dvd players

honestly the list is endless. DLA doesn't even begin to cover

Yes, but one wonders how people managed to care for their loved ones before they had to be paid a plethora of benefits to do so. My mother cared for my elderly grandfather (and my grandmother before that) for many years and did not need to be paid to do it - she did it because he had brought her up, she loved him more than life, and she was simply giving something back.

Blu - yes, I did give up a six-figure salary to be at home, and thereby made myself a dependent rather than an independent - a significant choice for me in itself, and something which I would do again tomorrow because I would rather raise my child myself than have a stranger do it for me. Having seen the amount of mothers with nannies in my old workplace, I saw how destructive and hurtful it could be.

I can see that the government certainly has its work cut out if it ever wants to change the mindset in this country from one of entitlement to one of obligation, responsibility and service.

they lived in absolute dire poverty
some had to work and leave their loved ones in squalor
people were institutionalised
mortality rates were very high
carers developed incredibly poor health themselves (still do in a lot of cases)
and on
and on
and on

do you really want to go back to how things were?

Really, do you not realise having a six figure salary to begin with puts you on an uneven playing field to vast majority of carers in this country? Compassion and empathy usually serves you well in life. I think you need a reminder

1)You are lucky that your mother could care for your grandfather.
2) Before the plethora of benefits available, people died either at home, in a home or at the workhouse.
3) Your mother wasn't making a lifelong commitment in looking after your grandfather.

Many people have to make a lifelong commitment to care for their child/children. They are entitled (yes I did use that word) to a reasonable and comfortable standard of living. Before benefits, these children would have been taken from the parent and put into an asylum, costing the government far more than any benefits currently provided.
Did you know that most of us who have children that need wheelchairs have to provide them ourselves because the nhs is cutting back to such an extent that when children reach a certain age there is only one chair available, whether or not it is suitable in size etc is not relavant. That is what DLA covers. In part.

relevant Sorry.

"be paid a plethora of benefits to do so. "
is that cares allowance. you mean the £56 a week to care for someone 24/7

I know £56 p/w and you can earn £100 p/w. It's a life of bloody luxury

sammypaws "I did give up a six-figure salary to be at home"

I very much doubt if you had that option open to you, you have any idea whatsoever about how hard things can be for others. You don't end up on that salary unless you had a head start. You are unaware of how ironic this statement is: entitlement to one of obligation, responsibility and service.

I want to move from culture where people like you feel entitled to judge the disadvantaged from the ivory tower of their charmed lives and start to feel a sense of obligation, responsibility and service towards the unfortunate, instead of only towards themselves!

OwlLady but you can only earn that is you can fit it round being a carer and all the appointments

I know threesocksmorgan, and that's if you have ENERGY to work. I work atm and it's killing me. I fantasise about jacking it all in :(

My grandparents were being cared for in the 1980s and 1990s - I am pretty sure that the workhouses/ squalor/ institutions had gone by then.

I have a lot of compassion and empathy, I was brought to understand that there were others who were less well off and that it wasn't always their own fault - circumstances change, fickle fate etc.

I have said all along that I have no issue with the disabled being supported by the state - that is expected in any society with a moral conscience. My issue is with the malingerers and wrongly classified that should not be entitled to these benefits claiming them and thereby giving all the claimants a poor reputation. So I think the current drive to assess those on the benefit and remove those that have been incorrectly placed on it is a good thing - for the state and the disability benefit claimant who genuinely need support.

I'm sorry don't we all make a lifetime commitment to look after someone/ something in one way or another? I'm pretty sure that children weren't forcibly taken and put in asylums, the parents had to sign them in - those whose parents cared enough, kept them.

sammypaws, there is a big difference in having the commitment of looking after a child with no disabilities or illness compared to one that will need lifelong care. One will grow up, become independent, have a life of their own, a family, and so on. The other will be in need of care for the rest of their life, often physical care and that puts a huge strain on people and families, but specifically women. The fraudulent rate for DLA is less than 1% isn't it? i am suere someone can confirm this, but it's VERY low

Disabled children were taken into care too, even in the 80's and 90's. Parents had to fight to keep them at home.

They were regularly forcibly taken and put into asylums. They were also forcibly operated on to ensure that they too couldn't have children. In some countries, this was happening right up until the 1970s.

And no, we don't all make a lifelong commitment to wipe another persons arse when they're 25, or change their sanitary towels at 30. We make a commitment to bring our children up and help them become responsible, independent adults. In some cases that isn't going to happen and some have no option but to leave employment to care for their children. They may not have the resources that you appear to have available to you.

Finally, as many have said, this is not about being reassessed, nobody minds that, they would however prefer said assessment to be fair and to be undertaken by people with the relevant qualifications, not by a company that has been banned from practise in many US states, due to immoral practices, lies and imcompetence.

A quick google shows the fraud rate for claiming DLA is less than 0.5%. It's extremely difficult to get

On the contrary food unit, I was brought up in a terraced house by two parents who left school at 14 to work. My father started his own business but when my parents separated before I was in my teens, things were rather tough for a while. Oh, and I forgot, my mother was an uncontrolled type 1 diabetic.

But we got over it and the one thing that both my parents were keen on was education and they made sure that I stayed in university until I achieved my masters degree which enabled me to get my six-figure salaried job.

By the way, for most of my years at work I was disabled, due to chronic leg pain/ weakness caused by massive DVTs in my leg which were caused by an inherited blood disorder. My workplace was very accommodating and allowed me the time off to attend hospital appointments and work from home when I was having a flare-up.

My parents both worked hard and were never entitled to anything (even when my father broke his neck in a car accident) - with the exception of child benefit of course.

Now - would you like to point out where my 'head start' was? No, I can't see it either, but I suppose the one thing I do have is determination to get on.

sammypaws "My issue is with the malingerers and wrongly classified that should not be entitled to these benefits claiming them and thereby giving all the claimants a poor reputation."

How many do you think there are? The majority? A significant number? Or just a small proportion who play the system?

How effective do you think the drive to target the "the malingerers and wrongly classified" will be? Effective enough to harm no people with genuine need? Effective enough to harm only some people with genuine need? Or ineffective enough to harm many people with genuine need? Likewise effective enough to target all, many or some of those wrongly classified? How expensive will this operation be? How much will this balance against the amount saved from actually targeting the wrongly classified?