1949 benefits programme on C4 now..who is watching?

[Allthingspretty]

anyone?

I stated a thread in aibu last week about the trailer for the programme last week. Tbh it was not as bad as I expected it to be. I do think that we are moving towards a 1949 attitude towards benefits. The whole spying on people seems very real in 2013 and the benefit tax just reinforces the deserving and undeserving poor that has been around since the days of the poor law and the workhouses. The governemnt to some degree has succeeded in turning people against one another and it would be interesting to know how many of our neighbours would be prepared or could help out in a case like Melvins.

MrsHelBels why were you unable to claim a penny in benefits if you were unwell?

This was 16 odd years ago, I'd not paid NI, couldn't claim JSA as I wasn't well enough to look for work & my fiancé earnt too much for me to get disability benefit. The details are a bit hazy now but I definitely didn't get anything.

They're also very conveniently forgetting those that were put into institutions. Which would have been the vast majority of physically and mentally disabled people as the family wouldn't have had any support to keep them home.

So these people would still have had to be paid for, but via health budgets not welfare. Would have cost more, too.

Remember the Tories implementing care in the community in the 80s to save a few quid?

Ah right MrsHelsBels the same would apply now, which is hard but at the same time if Karen's circs were the same as yours I.e. not enough stamp or a partner in employment she wouldn't have been entitled either. The system, which admittedly has flaws, is at the very least applied equitably to everyone.

Gobby I think they made it clear that people like Craig, had he been found unfit for any employment, would've ended up institutionalised. I also thought that when they went knocking to see if a neighbour could care for Melvin it made it clear that society now is not geared towards the "big society" that the con-dems blethered on about - everybody is too busy trying to keep their own heads above water.

It was ridiculous. The lady was just lazy IMO. Sure she might have some ailments, but so do many people. Surely having diabetics and arthritis doesn't stop you doing most jobs if sitting down? Even part time. Sure some people have pain sitting down, but she managed to sit down and watch tv fine, so Im sure a few hours offuce work would be manageable

Do you have all of Karen's conditions, Karen? If not what makes you qualified to comment?

I'm glad they touched on the use of institutions. They weren't exactly shiny happy places and the use of them didn't end until the late 80s/early 90s.

They were an expensive option, frequently subjected to abuse scandals and tens if not hundreds of thousands of people were thrown into them with no expectation that they deserved a normal life.

Yet the current govt seems to want a return to this system...

Karen forevergreek

(Steroid fog)

No of course not, everyone is different. But I do work with disabled people . If someone who is quadriplegic can work a computer via voice recognition and work, another serverly epileptic can volunteer reading to children, another with mentality of 8 year old plants strawberries. I'm not saying she should have to work full time, but she should at lease be contributing to society. Does it stop her volunteering to read to the elderly or children? Or working as cashier? Or from painting others nails? Iv no idea what she could do, but of the 1000 and 1 options I'm sure something is available.

My father is the quadriplegic I mentioned. After injuries in a car crash. He was horrified that everyone assumed he would never work and would fund everything he needed. He does get some things ie disability but he also works 40 hours a week via a headset and computer. He is proud that he pays himself for carers and his mortgage etc.. That is why she annoyed me that she couldn't type a line as her nails might break and that a pototoe was crippling her!

The deserving disabled recieve a lot less than they should I'm sure due to others claiming when try shouldn't. That money IMO should be going to parents of disabled children for respite or funding extra therapy or equipment for those who genuinely really need it.

It's great that he has an employer that facilitates that, many aren't that fortunate.

We have no idea of Karen does voluntary work. She is certainly a mother and cares for her kids. They looked clean, fed and loved. People with invisible disabilities get picked on a huge amount and in 1949 their pain would have been dismissed. I, for one, dont want to go back to those days.

And trotting out the odd 'inspirational' disabled person does not magic up jobs (half a million vacancies, mostly zero hours contracts, for 4 million unemployed) nor compliant employers. My son (not disabled) sent out 300 applications after A levels and only Sainsbos replied to tell him he didnt have the experience to fill trolleys in the warehouse . I dont rate my daughters chances highly (no movement, no speech, constantly in hospital but much brighter than my son is is predicted 4 A* this week ) in the jobs market. The next person who compares her to Stephen Hawkings might get a slap. She loathes physics.

I think with Karen people underestimate how serious conditions like arthritis can be.

My mum has a form where her white blood cells are attacking themselves and other parts of her body. She has to take pills where you have to have blood tests very regularly as the side effects include liver and kidney failure.

If my mum doesn't have them she struggles to drive, to dress herself and using syringes (she's a nurse) is agony for her.

My mum intends to work as long as possible but it's very unlikely she will cope to retirement age.

"Deserving disabled"? Did you really mean to write that forevergreek because it just sounds so thick narrow minded.

Some of the job suggestions on here are plain ridiculous. Where are these year round strawberry planting jobs that can pay £6+ per hour minimum wage? And voluntary work is unpaid that is the nature of it.

Also getting people into work is much more than can they use a computer or do a basic, unskilled, manual job. Other factors need to be considered including are there any jobs and is the person able to reliably fulfil an employment contract of X hours per week? Some chronic conditions like diabetes, epilepsy or arthritis can flare up causing people to take massive amounts of time off work. That is a huge issue for employers and employees.

Fwiw I think many, many employers could manage sickness and disability better but putting people into jobs they cannot reliably do can have severe consequences for the employer, employee and other employees.

One final point, just because you think you know someone disabled who isn't claiming benefit doesn't mean you are correct. They might just not have told YOU.

Yes I did mean that.
If someone needs help they Should be getting it and more, the neighbours around the corner who apparently can't work due to bad backs yet climb ladders ever year putting up thousands of Christmas lights should not.

Err, did you not read the bit about reliable employees? Or does do

...Or do you think every employer can afford to employ people who may/may not be well enough to come to work?

See I think that people who either can't or don't want to work should be allowed to claim benefits without having to sign on or go through 3 monthly reviews. I fail to see the point of making people who don't want to work jump through hoops to claim their benefit - it's a massive waste of time and resources. Equally I don't think that there's any need for the DWP to carry out their own medical checks - a doctors line should be enough. Surely we would be better putting that time and those resources into helping people who want a job but can't get one.

Did you not read about volunteering? I didn't say work, I said contribution to society. So someone with arthritis could still claim, but when not in pain could try and get to the local school/ vets/ old people's home/ local neighbour etc to help a few hours. It's doesn't have to be fixed days. I just mean if you claim, you should try and give something back. If that means you can take milk to an elderly neighbour and check they are ok instead of more money being spent on a carer then surely that's they way forward.

As I say I do contribute by saving the local authority several thousand pounds a week.

Who's to say I don't volunteer?

Yeah I read that. How do you know they're not volunteering? How do you know they're not contributing to society? It's worth noting job centres do everything they can to put people off volunteering. You should see the form!

It is also quite stupid naïve to think volunteering is accessible to all. There are often indirect costs associated with volunteering such as child care and travel. People on very low incomes don't always have access to phones or IT to offer help remotely. There can also be issues again with reliability.

It is not as black and white as you believe.

Some of this mandatory volunteering stuff sounds a lot like Community Service... a state issued punishment. Just an observation there...

I really wouldn't want a bunch of random people who are forced to do it volunteering in my child's school. Can't imagine they'd be the most enthusiastic crowd.

Well, I walked past SEE ticket sales this morning, the very one that Lovely Craig is I hope still working in, and I gave them a cheery smile for being lovely and giving him a job.

I am guessing that Karen wasn't quite as repulsive as she came across and had perhaps been groomed to make good telly, but who knows....Melvin and Craig didn't seem to be acting up.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Surely as a society you could just use your initiative to help others if you can. It's not rocket science