'I only survive through Cash Converters': Carer mum who can't afford a bed reveals desperate poverty

First topic message reminder :

The documentary goes behind the scenes of the staff and customers, some who are struggling to rub two pennies together

It's a heartbreaking moment for a Cash Converters customer who admits that she and her son are sleeping on an airbed because he can no longer make it upstairs.

Elaine is a full-time carer for 27-year-old Mark, who suffers from the rare degenerative condition Lowe's Syndrome, and she regularly visits the Cash Converter store in Glasgow to try and provide much needed funds to survive.

In the BBC show which goes behind the scenes of the staff and customers of the Renfield Street second-hand trading store in Glasgow, Elaine is a regular customer.

The staff of the store say of one of their favourite customers: "She's a fantastic woman, I've known her for so long."

A £65-a-week carer allowance is not enough for Elaine and her family to survive on, so she scrapes together anything she can including anything she can sell at Cash Converters.


Mark has a life expectancy of just 30 years old

Her son Mark's condition carries a life expectancy of just 30 years and Elaine says that the recent government cuts have greatly affected her job as her son's full-time carer.

She explains: "We're struggling and I would say we're not getting the help that we need. The help we need is just not there.

"We can't walk away because we're the carers and we have no choice."

In the rest of the show the staff are faced with a shoplifter who swipes a flat-screen television before a quick thinking member of staff runs after the thief to retrieve the expensive item.

The staff also have to stall a phone thief who tries to cash in on a stolen mobile so the police can question the customer.

It's also terrible news for one family who suffer a tragic loss and have to pawn their possessions to afford to pay for a funeral for their stillborn son.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/i-only-survive-through-cash-6117957

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If people don't want to improve their condition, why would I be concerned about them?

so you finally admit "its all about the benefit payments to them" now we are getting somewhere...

If someone is working and they have a condition, clearly they don't have it badly enough to be affected to the extent that they can't work. Therefore, they might not bother with treatment. However, if someone says they're too ill to work, you tell me why they would refuse any treatment.

victorismyhero wrote:well I'd disagree with that too...

unless of course we leave the runner who collapses to die

the driver at fault in an accident to die

the drunk to choke to death on the street

the suicide attempt to die....

etc etc


benefits never have been NOR EVER WERE INTENDED to be conditional upon accepting forced medication
health provision never has been nor ever was intended to be conditioned in the same way

"free at the point of need"

Well there you have it. Some people distinguish between self-inflicted disability, and non self-inflicted disability. I have an interest in the possible psychosomatic element of certain conditions. Could such conditions be said to self-inflicted? That is not the same as saying it's someone's fault they have a certain illness by the way.

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

so you finally admit "its all about the benefit payments to them" now we are getting somewhere...

If someone is working and they have a condition, clearly they don't have it badly enough to be affected to the extent that they can't work. Therefore, they might not bother with treatment. However, if someone says they're too ill to work, you tell me why they would refuse any treatment.

religious beliefs

a distrust of the medical profession (justified or not)

a decision made on te back of reasonabe evidence as to the risk/benefit profile of the treatment

a bad experience with earlier treatments....

and thats just a few "rational reasons"

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If someone is working and they have a condition, clearly they don't have it badly enough to be affected to the extent that they can't work. Therefore, they might not bother with treatment. However, if someone says they're too ill to work, you tell me why they would refuse any treatment.

religious beliefs

a distrust of the medical profession (justified or not)

a decision made on te back of reasonabe evidence as to the risk/benefit profile of the treatment

a bad experience with earlier treatments....

and thats just a few "rational reasons"

I would suggest that if their condition was so bad as to prevent them working - and therefore also from doing anything else - they would try treatment. I would be suspicious of someone who said they were in a terrible state but refused to try anything.

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

religious beliefs

a distrust of the medical profession (justified or not)

a decision made on te back of reasonabe evidence as to the risk/benefit profile of the treatment

a bad experience with earlier treatments....

and thats just a few "rational reasons"

I would suggest that if their condition was so bad as to prevent them working - and therefore also from doing anything else - they would try treatment. I would be suspicious of someone who said they were in a terrible state but refused to try anything.

try convincing HF or VOD of that.....

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:well I'd disagree with that too...

unless of course we leave the runner who collapses to die

the driver at fault in an accident to die

the drunk to choke to death on the street

the suicide attempt to die....

etc etc


benefits never have been NOR EVER WERE INTENDED to be conditional upon accepting forced medication
health provision never has been nor ever was intended to be conditioned in the same way

"free at the point of need"

Well there you have it. Some people distinguish between self-inflicted disability, and non self-inflicted disability. I have an interest in the possible psychosomatic element of certain conditions. Could such conditions be said to self-inflicted? That is not the same as saying it's someone's fault they have a certain illness by the way.

not in any conventional sense of "self inflicted" since it is beyond the control of your concious mind....

you are not, even in LAW, considered responsible for the acts of your subconcious

hence a sleep walker that kills cannot be held guilty of any form of homicide

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I would suggest that if their condition was so bad as to prevent them working - and therefore also from doing anything else - they would try treatment. I would be suspicious of someone who said they were in a terrible state but refused to try anything.

try convincing HF or VOD of that.....

What I mean is that I wouldn't rule out genuine concerns on those grounds, but I think they should certainly be investigated.

I do think that some people seem to "enjoy" ill health.

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:well I'd disagree with that too...

unless of course we leave the runner who collapses to die

the driver at fault in an accident to die

the drunk to choke to death on the street

the suicide attempt to die....

etc etc


benefits never have been NOR EVER WERE INTENDED to be conditional upon accepting forced medication
health provision never has been nor ever was intended to be conditioned in the same way

"free at the point of need"

Well there you have it. Some people distinguish between self-inflicted disability, and non self-inflicted disability. I have an interest in the possible psychosomatic element of certain conditions. Could such conditions be said to self-inflicted? That is not the same as saying it's someone's fault they have a certain illness by the way.

Where do you draw the line? Someone who injured themselves while bungee jumping or skydiving? What about someone injured in a car accident while speeding or running a red light? Couldn't that be considered reckless behavior or self-inflicted

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well there you have it. Some people distinguish between self-inflicted disability, and non self-inflicted disability. I have an interest in the possible psychosomatic element of certain conditions. Could such conditions be said to self-inflicted? That is not the same as saying it's someone's fault they have a certain illness by the way.

not in any conventional sense of "self inflicted"  since it is beyond the control of your concious mind....

you are not, even in LAW, considered responsible for the acts of your subconcious

hence a sleep walker that kills cannot be held guilty of any form of homicide

Well that's what I mean when I say it's not their fault.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well there you have it. Some people distinguish between self-inflicted disability, and non self-inflicted disability. I have an interest in the possible psychosomatic element of certain conditions. Could such conditions be said to self-inflicted? That is not the same as saying it's someone's fault they have a certain illness by the way.

Where do you draw the line? Someone who injured themselves while bungee jumping or skydiving? What about someone injured in a car accident while speeding or running a red light? Couldn't that be considered reckless behavior or self-inflicted

Where do you draw the line Korban? It was you who made the comment about self inflicted trough greed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Where do you draw the line? Someone who injured themselves while bungee jumping or skydiving? What about someone injured in a car accident while speeding or running a red light? Couldn't that be considered reckless behavior or self-inflicted

Where do you draw the line Korban? It was you who made the comment about self inflicted trough greed.

eating disorders can be a psychological disorder (or at least caused by stress) so it isn't always a conscious choice.

And i think it was tommy who mentioned stuffing there faces till they are unable to work .....not me

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Where do you draw the line Korban? It was you who made the comment about self inflicted trough greed.

eating disorders can be a psychological disorder (or at least caused by stress) so it isn't always a conscious choice.

And i think it was tommy who mentioned stuffing there faces till they are unable to work .....not me

But you did draw a distinction between "greed" and a genetic cause.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
eating disorders can be a psychological disorder (or at least caused by stress) so it isn't always a conscious choice.

And i think it was tommy who mentioned stuffing there faces till they are unable to work .....not me

But you did draw a distinction between "greed" and a genetic cause.

not in the way you seem to be implying not only did i stipulate how do you draw the distinction between the two i also cited two people i know my friend and my mother in law to illustrate my point

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But you did draw a distinction between "greed" and a genetic cause.

not in the way you seem to be implying not only did i stipulate how do you draw the distinction between the two i also cited two people i know my friend and my mother in law to illustrate my point

In what way did you draw a distinction then? You talked about genetic reasons, and you said some people put on weight even if they eat very little, but you didn't specify what you meant by "self inflicted trough greed".

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
not in the way you seem to be implying not only did i stipulate how do you draw the distinction between the two i also cited two people i know my friend and my mother in law to illustrate my point

In what way did you draw a distinction then? You talked about genetic reasons, and you said some people put on weight even if they eat very little, but you didn't specify what you meant by "self inflicted trough greed".

rater than repeating my self
try reading through my comments again raggs that should clear it up and cite the parts you are referring to and need clarification on

and just as a point
i think i asked  HOW do  you draw the distinction between say greed and genetic disposition and that was my point about removing benefit from obese people

korban dallas wrote:and just as a point
i think i asked  HOW do  you draw the distinction between say  greed and genetic disposition and that was my point about removing benefit from obese people

So you do think that benefits should be withdrawn from people with self-inflicted obesity?

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:and just as a point
i think i asked  HOW do  you draw the distinction between say  greed and genetic disposition and that was my point about removing benefit from obese people

So you do think that benefits should be withdrawn from people with self-inflicted obesity?

self-inflicted obesity?

first tell me how do you determine if it self inflicted raggs
And not the result of a psychological or genetic condition

do you know anybody who consciously goes out of there way to be overweight ?

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you do think that benefits should be withdrawn from people with self-inflicted obesity?

self-inflicted obesity?

first tell me how do you determine if it self inflicted raggs
And not the result of a psychological or genetic condition

do you know anybody who consciously goes out of there way to be overweight ?    

I'm asking you Korban because you're the one who said this.

No that`s ok if it is self inflicted trough greed

What is self-inflicted trough greed Korban, and do you really think that if those who indulge in it want benefits, they should seek help?

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
self-inflicted obesity?

first tell me how do you determine if it self inflicted raggs
And not the result of a psychological or genetic condition

do you know anybody who consciously goes out of there way to be overweight ?    

I'm asking you Korban because you're the one who said this.

No that`s ok if it is self inflicted trough greed

acctualy what i said was

No that`s ok if it is self inflicted trough greed
but i draw the line when it`probably a genetic cause you cant (or have great difficulty) fighting that and if you start discriminating because of a genetic preposition to a certain conditions then your heading down a very slippery slope indeed ,where do you draw the line

however that said being overweight is not a reason to avoid working i can relate a couple of personal accounts where a massively overweight person works just as hard as the next person and in some cases more so

one for example is
my friend (the scrap collector i have mentioned ) is massively overweight but everyday he is doing more exercise and physical activity in one day than i see in 6 months he does`t eat much more than would be considered normal yet he cant loose weight

people think all overweight are overweight through a concious choice or un-concious but they are many reasons and as i pointed out above A fifth of people are overweight because of a genetic preposition


so i ask again how do you prove its through greed

Yes, but Korban, what is OK if it's self-inflicted trough greed? This is my question to you - please stop asking me questions back.

Raggamuffin wrote:What is self-inflicted trough greed Korban, and do you really think that if those who indulge in it want benefits, they should seek help?

you tell me what is self inflicted and how do you prove it as was my point

Raggamuffin wrote:Yes, but Korban, what is OK if it's self-inflicted trough greed? This is my question to you - please stop asking me questions back.

if somebody intentionally goes out to be obese to claim benefits then they should be withdrawn

but its a stupid premise as i have never heard of such a thing and how could you prove such a motive you cant its a straw man argument

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What is self-inflicted trough greed Korban, and do you really think that if those who indulge in it want benefits, they should seek help?

you tell me what is self inflicted and how do you prove it as was my point

As you don't seem to understand the question, I'll tell what my interpretation of your remark is. When it comes to being able to claim disability benefits, you draw a distinction between self-inflicted conditions and non self-inflicted conditions, and you think that those who have self-inflicted disabilities or illnesses should seek help in order to get those benefits. Your definition of "self-inflicted" is not really the issue per se.

It's not me who is drawing that distinction. I have talked about treatable conditions, which is a different issue.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Yes, but Korban, what is OK if it's self-inflicted trough greed? This is my question to you - please stop asking me questions back.

if somebody intentionally goes out to be obese to claim benefits then they should be withdrawn

but its a stupid premise as i have never heard of such a thing and how could you prove such a motive you cant its a straw man argument

If that's what you really meant, and you don't think it happens, then it's you who introduced it as a straw man argument.

What about those who are already obese but don't want to lose their benefits, so they don't make an effort to lose weight? Do you think that might happen?

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
you tell me what is self inflicted and how do you prove it as was my point

As you don't seem to understand the question, I'll tell what my interpretation of your remark is. When it comes to being able to claim disability benefits, you draw a distinction between self-inflicted conditions and non self-inflicted conditions, and you think that those who have self-inflicted disabilities or illnesses should seek help in order to get those benefits. Your definition of "self-inflicted" is not really the issue per se.

It's not me who is drawing that distinction. I have talked about treatable conditions, which is a different issue.

Ah your interpretation there`s the rub you do like your little games

many disability's could be classed as self inflicted as i have also pointed out but we are not talking about all the "conditions" are we

we are talking about one conditions "obesity"

so until you can tell me how you would decide if the person who is obese intentionally made them self obese to claim benefit or avoid working then your premise is just silly word play and a straw-man argument
a guy who breaks the speed limit and is involved in an accident and looses his legs as a result is a self inflicted disability intentional or not i can point to the reason he is disabled i can show cause and effect

you cant really do that with obesity and who in there right mind makes them-self intentionally obese to avoid work and claim benefits its a bloody stupid premise

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
if somebody intentionally goes out to be obese to claim benefits then they should be withdrawn

but its a stupid premise as i have never heard of such a thing and how could you prove such a motive you cant its a straw man argument

If that's what you really meant, and you don't think it happens, then it's you who introduced it as a straw man argument.

What about those who are already obese but don't want to lose their benefits, so they don't make an effort to lose weight? Do you think that might happen?

please feel free to ignore the rest of that post


people think all overweight are overweight through a concious choice or un-concious but they are many reasons and as i pointed out

i have never heard of what you are trying to say concious choice or self inflicted its the same thing

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
if somebody intentionally goes out to be obese to claim benefits then they should be withdrawn

but its a stupid premise as i have never heard of such a thing and how could you prove such a motive you cant its a straw man argument

If that's what you really meant, and you don't think it happens, then it's you who introduced it as a straw man argument.

What about those who are already obese but don't want to lose their benefits, so they don't make an effort to lose weight? Do you think that might happen?

yes it is what i meant but you can`t differentiate them as i pointed out more than once

nobody other than perhaps sumo wrestlers would do that anthey are fit enough to work and fight
and as i also said obesity is not a reason to avoid work unless its chronic and if it is they is more than likely a underlying psychological or genetic issue that needs addressing rather than removing there benefits as a punishment

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

As you don't seem to understand the question, I'll tell what my interpretation of your remark is. When it comes to being able to claim disability benefits, you draw a distinction between self-inflicted conditions and non self-inflicted conditions, and you think that those who have self-inflicted disabilities or illnesses should seek help in order to get those benefits. Your definition of "self-inflicted" is not really the issue per se.

It's not me who is drawing that distinction. I have talked about treatable conditions, which is a different issue.

Ah your interpretation there`s the rub you do like your little games

many disability's could be classed as self inflicted as i have also pointed out but we are not talking about all the "conditions" are we

we are talking about one conditions "obesity"

so until you can tell me how you would decide if the person who is obese intentionally made them self obese to claim benefit or avoid working then your premise is just silly word play and a straw-man argument  
a guy who breaks the speed limit and is involved in an accident and looses his legs as a result is a self inflicted disability intentional or not i can point to the reason he is disabled i can show cause and effect

you cant really do that with obesity and who in there right mind makes them-self intentionally obese  to avoid work and claim benefits its a bloody stupid premise  

Well I did ask you several times Korban, and you either chose to misunderstand my questions or you willfully refused to answer them, so it's not me who's playing games.

You are still avoiding the real question, so my interpretation stands. It's you who used the term "self-inflicted", so turning it back on me won't help.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If that's what you really meant, and you don't think it happens, then it's you who introduced it as a straw man argument.

What about those who are already obese but don't want to lose their benefits, so they don't make an effort to lose weight? Do you think that might happen?

yes it is what i meant but you can`t differentiate them as i pointed out more than once

nobody other than perhaps sumo wrestlers would do that anthey are fit enough to work and fight
and as i also said obesity is not a reason to avoid work unless its chronic and if it is they is more than likely a underlying psychological or genetic issue that needs addressing rather than removing there benefits as a punishment

So what did you mean when you said to Didge that it was "OK" if it was self-inflicted trough greed. He said that he was all for people getting treatment as a condition of receiving benefits. Is that what you were saying was OK?

Sorry Korben I am all for this and the same should be applied to smokers and drinkers.You want benefits, then you look to see help to quit smoking and if you have a drink problem.

Acctualy i think it was you who introduced the term in your relpy to victor



Raggamuffin wrote:

   victorismyhero wrote:
   well I'd disagree with that too...
   unless of course we leave the runner who collapses to die
   the driver at fault in an accident to die
   the drunk to choke to death on the street
   the suicide attempt to die....
   etc etc


   benefits never have been NOR EVER WERE INTENDED to be conditional upon accepting forced medication
   health provision never has been nor ever was intended to be conditioned in the same way

   "free at the point of need"



Well there you have it. Some people distinguish between self-inflicted disability, and non self-inflicted disability. I have an interest in the possible psychosomatic element of certain conditions. Could such conditions be said to self-inflicted? That is not the same as saying it's someone's fault they have a certain illness by the way.

korban dallas wrote:Acctualy i think it was you who introduced the term in your relpy to victor



Raggamuffin wrote:

   victorismyhero wrote:
   well I'd disagree with that too...
   unless of course we leave the runner who collapses to die
   the driver at fault in an accident to die
   the drunk to choke to death on the street
   the suicide attempt to die....
   etc etc


   benefits never have been NOR EVER WERE INTENDED to be conditional upon accepting forced medication
   health provision never has been nor ever was intended to be conditioned in the same way

   "free at the point of need"



Well there you have it. Some people distinguish between self-inflicted disability, and non self-inflicted disability. I have an interest in the possible psychosomatic element of certain conditions. Could such conditions be said to self-inflicted? That is not the same as saying it's someone's fault they have a certain illness by the way.

Well no - because I made that post after you had already introduced the term.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:If they accept medical treatment they wont lose out though.

There is a serious obesity crisis that largely IS caused by bad diet and lack of physical activity in the UK. The government shouldn't be supporting that kind of lifestyle should they?

The condition is accepting treatment, if someone doesn't want to accept help why should they be allowed to accept handouts?

I don't always support the Tory government, but on tjis I fully agree.

This post interests me. Do you only apply that to things like obesity Les? If so, is that because you consider it to be self-inflicted, or is it because you consider it to be treatable? If it's the latter, would you extend that to any condition which is treatable?

just checked again to be accurate and the first mention i can find of that term is again by you to Eilzel

i am happy to be corrected mind

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:Acctualy i think it was you who introduced the term in your relpy to victor



Raggamuffin wrote:

   victorismyhero wrote:
   well I'd disagree with that too...
   unless of course we leave the runner who collapses to die
   the driver at fault in an accident to die
   the drunk to choke to death on the street
   the suicide attempt to die....
   etc etc


   benefits never have been NOR EVER WERE INTENDED to be conditional upon accepting forced medication
   health provision never has been nor ever was intended to be conditioned in the same way

   "free at the point of need"



Well there you have it. Some people distinguish between self-inflicted disability, and non self-inflicted disability. I have an interest in the possible psychosomatic element of certain conditions. Could such conditions be said to self-inflicted? That is not the same as saying it's someone's fault they have a certain illness by the way.

Well no - because I made that post after you had already introduced the term.

prove it please i have just been through the posts on the obesity thread where it is first mentioned (tip use edit /find on page )

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

This post interests me. Do you only apply that to things like obesity Les? If so, is that because you consider it to be self-inflicted, or is it because you consider it to be treatable? If it's the latter, would you extend that to any condition which is treatable?

just checked again to be accurate and the first mention i can find of that term is again by you to Eilzel

i am happy to be corrected mind

I am happy to correct you. Your post to Didge was made on Wednesday, and my post to Les was made yesterday.

Anyway, what I'm trying to establish is if some people do indeed think that benefits for disability should be conditional in some way or not.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well no - because I made that post after you had already introduced the term.

prove it please i have just been through the posts on the obesity thread where it is first mentioned (tip use edit /find on page )

The post you quoted from me is in this thread - I posted that last night. You used the term "self inflicted" on Wednesday.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:


just checked again to be accurate and the first mention i can find of that term is again by you to Eilzel

i am happy to be corrected mind

I am happy to correct you. Your post to Didge was made on Wednesday, and my post to Les was made yesterday.

Anyway, what I'm trying to establish is if some people do indeed think that benefits for disability should be conditional in some way or not.

well lets see this post because i have just checked 3 times now and you as far as i can see first brought up the term and you obviously know where this is so please if i am wrong i will apologise

and "anyway" seems just a i don`t want to statement i will now check a forth time just to be sure

Arguing with KD is like trying to grab a partly deflated balloon... you easily have it in your grasp but every time you grip it tight to finish it off, it changes shape and a bit pops out through your fingers in a totally random and different direction...

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I am happy to correct you. Your post to Didge was made on Wednesday, and my post to Les was made yesterday.

Anyway, what I'm trying to establish is if some people do indeed think that benefits for disability should be conditional in some way or not.

well lets see this post because i have just checked 3 times now and you as far as i can see first brought up the term and you obviously know where this is so please  if i am wrong i will apologise

and "anyway" seems just a i don`t want to statement i will now check a forth time just to be sure

Your post:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10779-obese-must-get-treatment-or-lose-benefits-says-pm

My post to Les:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10779p100-obese-must-get-treatment-or-lose-benefits-says-pm

My post to Victor:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10802p150-i-only-survive-through-cash-converters-carer-mum-who-can-t-afford-a-bed-reveals-desperate-poverty#210073

well i have just checked Again from  on Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:09 pm to by  Yesterday at 11:28 pm

and it was first mentioned by you 2 times in the same post


Well there you have it. Some people distinguish between self-inflicted disability, and non self-inflicted disability. I have an interest in the possible psychosomatic element of certain conditions. Could such conditions be said to self-inflicted? That is not the same as saying it's someone's fault they have a certain illness by the way

korban dallas wrote:well i have just checked Again from  on Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:09 pm to by  Yesterday at 11:28 pm

and it was first mentioned by you 2 times in the same post


Well there you have it. Some people distinguish between self-inflicted disability, and non self-inflicted disability. I have an interest in the possible psychosomatic element of certain conditions. Could such conditions be said to self-inflicted? That is not the same as saying it's someone's fault they have a certain illness by the way

No. That post was made last night.

Post by Raggamuffin Yesterday at 23:13


Your post was made on Wednesday.

Post by korban dallas on Wed 29 Jul 2015 - 9:03

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:well i have just checked Again from  on Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:09 pm to by  Yesterday at 11:28 pm

and it was first mentioned by you 2 times in the same post


Well there you have it. Some people distinguish between self-inflicted disability, and non self-inflicted disability. I have an interest in the possible psychosomatic element of certain conditions. Could such conditions be said to self-inflicted? That is not the same as saying it's someone's fault they have a certain illness by the way

No. That post was made last night.

Post by Raggamuffin Yesterday at 23:13


Your post was made on Wednesday.

Post by korban dallas on Wed 29 Jul 2015 - 9:03

And as promised you have my apology

Why do you think I made that post Korban? It was because you differentiated between "self-inflicted" obesity and other kinds - like genetic obesity.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No. That post was made last night.

Post by Raggamuffin Yesterday at 23:13


Your post was made on Wednesday.

Post by korban dallas on Wed 29 Jul 2015 - 9:03

And as promised you have my apology

Thank you!

Now what about my question?

Keep squeezing that balloon rags and it will just keep popping out through your fingers...

Tommy Monk wrote:Keep squeezing that balloon rags and it will just keep popping out through your fingers...

I think the point has been lost Tommy.

It seems to me that the initial outrage on here at the idea of conditional disability benefits has actually been countered by some people, and that the suggestion is not as outrageous to some as it first seemed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
And as promised you have my apology

Thank you!

Now what about my question?

its still a stupid question as there is no way as i said to differentiate ether way as i also said in that same post and repeated on this one

people think all overweight are overweight through a concious choice or un-concious  but they are many reasons and as i pointed out above A fifth of people are overweight because of a genetic preposition

A concious choice would be in essence self inflicted but i know of nobody ,i have heard of nobody, other than the notable exception of a sumo wrestler who has made that choice just to avoid work and claim benefits hence its a straw man argument
and as i also keep saying they is no real way to differentiate  

but as i also said if they was some way of proving that somebody deliberately ate so much as to but them self`s over weight so much  to go on disability and avoid work with all the other potentially fatal health risks that such a course of action would create
Heart disease and stroke.
High blood pressure.
Diabetes.
Some cancers.
Gallbladder disease and gallstones.
Osteoarthritis.
Gout.
Breathing problems, such as sleep apnea
to name but a few

then you have to then look at some kind of psychological problem that needs addressing
you ask any fat person if they would want to be fat all the fat people i konw would rather not be fat

This was the question Korban:


So what did you mean when you said to Didge that it was "OK" if it was self-inflicted trough greed. He said that he was all for people getting treatment as a condition of receiving benefits. Is that what you were saying was OK?

Sorry Korben I am all for this and the same should be applied to smokers and drinkers.You want benefits, then you look to see help to quit smoking and if you have a drink problem.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thank you!

Now what about my question?

its still a stupid question as there is no way as i said to differentiate ether way as i also said in that same post and repeated on this one

people think all overweight are overweight through a concious choice or un-concious  but they are many reasons and as i pointed out above A fifth of people are overweight because of a genetic preposition

A concious choice would be in essence self inflicted but i know of nobody ,i have heard of nobody, other than the notable exception of a sumo wrestler who has made that choice just to avoid work and claim benefits hence its a straw man argument
and as i also keep saying they is no real way to differentiate  

but as i also said if they was some way of proving that somebody deliberately ate so much as to but them self`s over weight so much  to go on disability and avoid work with all the other potentially fatal health risks that such a course of action would create
Heart disease and stroke.
High blood pressure.
Diabetes.
Some cancers.
Gallbladder disease and gallstones.
Osteoarthritis.
Gout.
Breathing problems, such as sleep apnea
to name but a few

then you have to then look at some kind of psychological problem that needs addressing
you ask any fat person if they would want to be fat all the fat people i konw would rather not be fat

Well now, there are some interesting conditions in there which some people do indeed claim disability benefits for.

Let's take gout for example. Some people do indeed suffer so much from gout that it makes them incapacitated, and they can claim disability benefits.

There are several ideas about what causes uric acid to rise so much that crystals get deposited in the joints - causing gout. Diet is one of those - and of course the usual suspect - alcohol. Now I'm not convinced about diet tbh, but experts disagree with me. What if someone who was incapacitated by gout was told that it would be much better if they gave up alcohol and other certain foods, and they refused to do so? What if they were advised to have treatment to reduce uric acid which would control the gout, and they refused to do so?