How wicked of you, David Cameron.

[vivizone]

So we're going back to Victorian notions of the 'undeserving poor'. Time to re-open the workhouses.

How this man and his cronies are getting away with so much damage done to the ordinary man and woman, I do not know.

Help us all.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/09/deserving-families-council-housing-priority

"...and dont think you can shout people down. "

Oh- the irony!

A complete misrepresentation of how the thread has evolved Amber
Outraged protested mildly at the end of page 2 that yet again, the discussion was being hijacked and commented that it would be nice to discuss benefits and social housing without this happening. I didn't comment until page 8. Hardly "steering".

The government are basically saying that some people don't deserve a decent, secure and affordable home. Every human being has the right to a roof over their head. It's a basic need, like food or water.

There should be enough homes for ex-service personell AND whoever happens to be homeless. There isn't. Time to get building some homes.

So you want to have a discussion which ignores the reality that disabled people will no longer have priority for a home provided by the state and that the government doesn't seem to care what will happen to them as a result?

No irony sunflowers.

We are being told we shouldn't speak about something that is highly relevant.

That is shouting down in my book.

perception
Given that the article cited in the OP didn't mention that the disabled were going to be affected in any shape or form ? Yes, actually, I would like to be able to have a discussion about those who were mentioned, without having to reiterate, yet again, that disabled people need safeguarding.

And there are many others who would like to talk about something equally relevant to them without having to justify themselves to you first, Amber

Go right ahead sunflowers.

Ive not said anyone shouldn't talk about anything.

And Iain Duncan Smith who is fixing the disabled describes himself as a practising Christian. (Give over Duncan))

No ? you just say "but you chose to join the armed forces", or "well nobody forced you to become addicted" or " it's your own fault you got pregnant", thereby implying that nobody elses misfortunes are as deserving as your own.

Going back to work now. Will catch up later.

sunflower - disabled people are not mentioned specifically. But that is the point really isn't it? That the impact on people who are the most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves is simply ignored.

Further down the article it says that currently certain groups of the most vulnerable people, eg people with illness, disability or pregnant get priority. Then someone interviewed expresses concern that these people will no longer have priority.

How can you assume that disabled people will not be affected by this? The implication is that they will be.

I've just read an old book about workhouses and it really shocked me that many of the ideas behind the workhouses are being stated by this government. There were some eerie similarities.

No ? you just say "but you chose to join the armed forces", or "well nobody forced you to become addicted" or " it's your own fault you got pregnant", thereby implying that nobody elses misfortunes are as deserving as your own

Please point me to where I said any of that.

sunflowers, most of us are able to think through consequences.

If a limited (and shrinking) resource like social housing is to be split between a larger number of people, this unavoidably impacts the people currently receiving the resource.

It's therefore not possible to have a meaningful discussion about increasing the priority list without discussing the impact on the people already on it.

Unless, of course, you build/buy in more houses. As Frothy said.

this shows how some people really don't see disabled people. of course this will affect them.
and as for the hijack accusation. why shouldn't people post about how badly disabled people will be affected by this. they will be. it is relevant.
I personally couldn't care less if that annoys people. any debate or thread about benefit/housing cuts will end up about disabled people, because they are they vulnerable and are the ones being hardest hit.

Amber, hoping that the thread can discuss the Op and the link that was posted in the OP is not shouting anyone down. It's just trying to stick to the point.

I appreciate that threads evolve, but it does seem than any thread that mentions welfare, benefits, social housing, or even tax, gets quickly turned into a thread about disabled people. And while I do think disabled people have valid reason to want to shout about the government policies that are affecting them, I don't think it should be don't to the excursion of any other type of welfare that is not disability related.

If you want to shout about disability issues, then there is no reason to do so on a thread abut something else.

Agree with Outraged I'm afraid. Have seen it happen to sooo many threads it becomes predictable and I for lose interest.

but this is a thread about an issue that will affect disabled people.
why is that so hard to comprehend.
do you really not get that?
also you cannot decide who posts what on a thread.

Of course I can 'get' that disabled people may be affected by this. Although some disabled people might be better off if they can and do make a contribution to society, as many do.

But I also think there are other groups of people who are worthy of discussion too. What don't you get about that?

laughtergoodmedicine Mon 12-Nov-12 14:11:13

And Iain Duncan Smith who is fixing the disabled describes himself as a practising Christian. (Give over Duncan))

Yet his actions have fuck all to do with the teachings of Christ. There are many on the right who claim to be Christians, just like Iain and Duncan Smith. They're hypocrites too.

Tony Blairs a tons didn't seem particularly Christian either, when he decided to condem thousands of Iraqis to their death, but who am I to question the relationship he believes he has with God.

I can't believe you are bringing religion into this. The phrase 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' comes to mind.

Actions!

Er, I can and do make a contribution to society. I'm not better off because of it. In fact it often costs me money.

BTW I love the way you pose being affected by housing cuts in contrast to making a contribution to society. Like the two are mutually exclusive.

(Perhaps I should declare I've never had social housing, so have no self-interest here. Oddly, that doesn't stop me seeing the issues.)

I'm always surprised by the number of conservatives who claim to be christian. Isn't Ian DS also a Mitt Romney supporter?? Say no more...

Amber, hoping that the thread can discuss the Op and the link that was posted in the OP is not shouting anyone down. It's just trying to stick to the point

But the point includes the issue of disabilities, it really does.

And while I do think disabled people have valid reason to want to shout about the government policies that are affecting them, I don't think it should be don't to the exclusion of any other type of welfare that is not disability related

Yet no one is saying other things shouldn't be discussed...except those who don't want to hear about disability related issues.

Agree with Outraged I'm afraid. Have seen it happen to sooo many threads it becomes predictable and I for lose interest

Ah well, sorry if it bores you.

Yep. I'm pretty sure that in days gone by feminists and those speaking out against racism were considered pretty boring too.

So tedious hearing about those horrid others isn't it? After all they're not like you.