Benefit cuts are fuelling abuse of disabled people, say charities

[AdamD]

Originally Posted by peanut

I'm sure he probably meant occurrences rather than days. Employers like Unilever has something similar, where if you are off for 4 occurrences in one year, you could be sacked. This could mean that 1 day off would be 1 occurrence and the same if it was for 1 week (consecutive days). So in theory if you take 4 separate non consecutive days off in 1 year, you could end up out of a job.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Originally Posted by Gary L

And along with that comes the attitude that they are on their own.

Maybe in your world ,but not in mine

the whole objective is purely to save money

yes Gary ,that is the point and in other obvious news the suns going to rise tomorrow

society is going to change dramatically towards these kind of people now. and society is going to be paying a bigger price for it.

well if people ,such as yourself ,truly believe that then it's bound to happen isn't it .
What will happen ,i hope ,is that society will learn to wean itself of the governments teat which it has become increasingly dependant on over the last 30-40yrs

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

yes Gary ,that is the point

As much money as possible. and don't care who suffers as a result.
meanwhile, we'll give millions of pounds away. we'll write billions of pounds off. and we'll pay for an MP's newspaper, because he's tighter than one of them tight things.

and in other obvious news the suns going to rise tomorrow

Until Dave takes it away from us.

What will happen ,i hope ,is that society will learn to wean itself of the governments teat which it has become increasingly dependant on over the last 30-40yrs

Yeh, if you're incapable of preparing a meal and cooking that meal. you're now capable of pushing the Start button on the microwave.

Originally Posted by Gary L

Yeh, if you're incapable of preparing a meal and cooking that meal. you're now capable of pushing the Start button on the microwave.

EH ? what the hell does that mean ,your taliking gibberish again gary ,thought you ought to know

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

EH ? what the hell does that mean ,your taliking gibberish again gary ,thought you ought to know

Thanks for telling me.

If it takes you an hour to walk there when it usually takes 10 mins. start out earlier.

Originally Posted by Gary L

Thanks for telling me.

If it takes you an hour to walk there when it usually takes 10 mins. start out earlier.

i give up ,i can't be bothered with your criptic ramblings

[Gary L]

That's probably because you are too focussed on disabled people need to get a job.

Originally Posted by Gary L

That's probably because you are too focussed on disabled people need to get a job.

you'll have to show me where i said that because i don't recall ever saying that .

[Angua]

This thread has definitely proved its title.

Originally Posted by Angua

This thread has definitely proved its title.

How so ?

I think that this thread has proven that some people think that all disabled people should be allowed to sit on benefits and be supported by the state regardless of the severity of their disability and any suggestion that some disabled people are capable of working and supporting themselves is met with out and out hostility

[mertle]

Originally Posted by martyh

How so ?

I think that this thread has proven that some people think that all disabled people should be allowed to sit on benefits and be supported by the state regardless of the severity of their disability and any suggestion that some disabled people are capable of working and supporting themselves is met with out and out hostility

No martyh there whole host disibilities who could but it should be case by case with not just based on disibilty alone. The medication how that disabilty effects them should be considered.

Its not as black & white some with same disability and medication could have totally different reactions which cause bad adversities.

I also do think some errors down to people who filled the forms in its not the easiest thing to do to fill government forms. People can be either dishonest (deliberate exageration) or too honest (say you can do things but clearly cant you would not believe how many do that). The forms itself are very big factor to play in errors too. Some dont get profesional advice to help fill them in and dont mean the crook down the road talking proper charity help or council funded or even go to your GP. The new form I believe worse in itself tries to trap people with its wording think that caught out alot. Reading the disibilty forums one is can you stand without someone supporting you it makes no mention of aids. Now clearly if you need aid then its a NO but how many misunderstood the question. I think the government goto remember not all disabled will understand the way it sets questions. The government got duty be fair make sure form filling is simple and help booklet provided with loads examples which would ideal.

I think the more disabled help out there on form filling there believe been less errors.

There should also be another consideration for those in wrag the CLIMATE wrong at present so expecting instant job movement wont happen.

I maybe wrong but my understanding wrag assessment group. To assess those in wrag see what sort work and when if not yet move them to support.

What is clear over the months the assessment part of the changes is possible weak whether ATOS over stepping interpretation or guides weak it needs addressing. Errors we need to elliminate. Its not suprising the fear from disabled due to hostility they get in the streets. The errors whether due to misunderstanding errors from filling the form or ATOS these causing/caused no end collateral damage.

Martyh you surely can be understanding why the fear is there its nothing to do with weening of benefits its the fear of being wrongly assessed and the hostility towards them.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by martyh

How so ?

I think that this thread has proven that some people think that all disabled people should be allowed to sit on benefits and be supported by the state regardless of the severity of their disability and any suggestion that some disabled people are capable of working and supporting themselves is met with out and out hostility

Yet by the same token anyone who does manage to find work off their own bat despite disability is jumped on for also expecting state help to either continue in work or failing that find other work. If you are disabled you may need no help from the state to work or you may need help to get work and sustain the job. Neither scenario is wrong. The important issue is what is not perhaps the cheapest option but what is cost effective in the long term. Clearly parts of Remploy were not cost effective so the right decision has for once been made. However, this government seems to have no idea how cost effective it is to keep a disabled person in their own home with a little support rather than in highly expensive residential care. So the vast majority of genuine disabled folk are lumped together with the tiny minority of fakers.

[Taf]

...along with their Carers.

"Carer Abuse" is something I encounter at least once a week, by people who would not do the "job", especially at the pitiful rates we are "reimbursed".

I know several "professional carers" who end up with a much better overall income for far fewer hours... and they only get a small percentage of what their bosses demand for their labours.

Originally Posted by Angua

Yet by the same token anyone who does manage to find work off their own bat despite disability is jumped on for also expecting state help to either continue in work or failing that find other work. If you are disabled you may need no help from the state to work or you may need help to get work and sustain the job. Neither scenario is wrong. The important issue is what is not perhaps the cheapest option but what is cost effective in the long term. Clearly parts of Remploy were not cost effective so the right decision has for once been made. However, this government seems to have no idea how cost effective it is to keep a disabled person in their own home with a little support rather than in highly expensive residential care. So the vast majority of genuine disabled folk are lumped together with the tiny minority of fakers.

Problem is separating the genuine from the fakers ,and part of the problem is that the term "disabled" is so easily applied to people these days .I've just had a browse at the latest figures and am staggered to see that 1 in 5 people of working age in the UK are considered disabled .Now either the UK is a very sick place and getting worse or the definition of disabled has been changed to include anybody with a limp or is a tad anxious .Finding the fakers amongst those 1 in 5 is the job the government has been tasked with and it isn''t going to be easy given that the term disabled has been so easily applied

[Angua]

Originally Posted by martyh

Problem is separating the genuine from the fakers ,and part of the problem is that the term "disabled" is so easily applied to people these days .I've just had a browse at the latest figures and am staggered to see that 1 in 5 people of working age in the UK are considered disabled .Now either the UK is a very sick place and getting worse or the definition of disabled has been changed to include anybody with a limp or is a tad anxious .Finding the fakers amongst those 1 in 5 is the job the government has been tasked with and it isn''t going to be easy given that the term disabled has been so easily applied

No different from lumping everyone together who is over 6' tall & saying they are the normal hight. They can manage things just because they are tall that shorter people couldn't. Doesn't make the problems the shorter people have any less of an issue. Just needs different ways of making things compatible for the people who are not 6' tall.

Or like saying everyone is guaranteed shoes and only providing size 6. For some this will be useless, for others a bit of adjustment will do. However what ATOS are doing is trying to make everyone fit into a size 6 which is impossible as there is not enough to go round.

It is focussing on those in society who need help that is making them the target, whether through stupidity, ignorance or jealousy. Many of these disabled are not equipped to understand why they are being targeted or even defend themselves, yet this obsession with the sins of a few is being paid in terror by the innocent. This Cannot ever be justified.