We might be disabled, but we still badly need our independence

First topic message reminder :

Iain Duncan Smith is axing the independent living fund, which gives thousands of people valuable but simple freedoms. This is why we are protesting



Almost 29 years ago, on a grey day in August 1985, I moved to east London from a council estate in the Chilterns. I was in my mid-20s and had fought, with many tears, to be "allowed" to do this. I am disabled, a wheelchair user, and independence from the family home came after four years of constant battles with social workers. That I succeeded is perhaps more to do with youthful bravado than any consciously successful plan – that, and the support of my mum.

Until this time, my mum had been my full-time carer, all the while bearing the weight of a family of six. She helped me to wash and dress, eat and drink, use the toilet, and move in and out of bed. A charity raised funds for me to buy me a scooter. In my punky-goth clothes I would go into the village with my mum, once a week. That was my life. It was scarcely an existence.

Growing up, there was never any doubt mum would care for me until she died, or I did. I would never be shoved into the dreaded care home. Then I met K, a like-minded disabled mutineer, who became a close friend and shared my urge to escape. We started writing up a storm – fiction, poetry, you name it – and by 1985 had made a tentative move into the burgeoning disability arts scene. But when we moved, we were still beginners in terms of independent living.

The Independent Living (IL) movement came out of the US in the late 1960s as part of the wave of civil rights movements. Activists such as Ed Roberts, often deemed the father of independent living, called for disabled people to have more self-determination, to move away from the notion that "experts" are needed to look after us, instead giving choice and control directly to disabled people. These ideas began to hit the UK in the early 1980s. Disabled activists pushed for a move away from a patriarchal approach to social care to one which was user-led; a shift "from institutions to community", as a piece by John Evans, an early advocate of IL, was titled.

The movement experienced a great leap in 1988, when the independent living fund (ILF) came into being. This promised to deliver "financial support to disabled people so they can choose to live in their communities rather than in residential care".

In 2016, under the direction of Iain Duncan Smith, the ILF is set to close. This leaves its users with an axe over our heads. The Department for Work and Pensions has suggested that we are an "elite", taking too much of a shrinking social care cake. We are not elite. We are fighting simply to stay in our homes, to avoid going into abuse-riddled institutions, or to fall back on our over-stretched families – primarily, our mothers.

Let's not fool ourselves: when the ILF closes, women will once more be at risk of absorbing this obligation. Statistics show women already account for 58% of carers.

Over the past 29 years I have had the simple freedoms to choose what to wear and when to go to bed, the support to work, and to have a social life – and with these freedoms, my mum has had hers restored too. I am her daughter again, not a default, dependent burden; we have a wonderfully fun and loving relationship.

My mum wrote to her MP, Neil Parish, in 2013 voicing her concerns about the ILF closure. He passed the letter on to then minister for disabled people, Esther McVey. In her reply, McVey opined that "while I understand her concerns, it is too simplistic to consider all residential settings as environments that undermine independence". To put it mildly, my mum was not pleased with the response, or to being told she had simplistic views.

This is one of the many reasons why disabled activists are going to the DWP today, to protest with comrades at the IL Tea Party. I will do some performance poetry. There will be noise and cake. My mum, almost 78, will be there beside me, in support. She is still determined I will not be institutionalised – still my rock.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/04/disabled-independence-iain-duncan-smith-axing-independent-living-fund

Ian Duncan Smith is THE most revolting man in Government. The sooner he goes the better.

nicko wrote: I get DLA or PIP as they call it,paid at £225 a month,plus my old age pension at £110 aweek. my house is paid for. Wife gets £110 a week pension.i run a small car,BUT I don't play bingo or have foreign holidays.We manage quite well,cant see why others can't

...sadly that's something we often hear from those on the right Nicko....but there are contributing factors such as how much energy people use, you might not get as cold as someone even more frail than you, some older people live alone, some people's houses just might not be as well insulated as yours ...

There are so many factors to take into account Nicko and to assume every single person on disability benefits should manage easily isn't realistic ,it's a bit like saying every disabled person can or can not manage the same everyday chores.

Raggamuffin wrote:What is DLA for then?

Trying to allow a disabled person to achieve the same standard of living as a non disabled person on the same living income by covering inevitable costs of being disabled.

People do not realize that being disabled costs money before you even start - if you cannot walk then "popping down the shop for a pint of milk" becomes far more of a challenge - one that often requires money to overcome (paying for a taxi to take you there and back for instance). Or it may be extra washing, or needing extra or more expensive equipment to do day to day things like making a couple of tea. Or just higher heating bills - if getting cold means being restricted to bed or becoming acutely ill.

So if a disabled person is unemployed DLA should allow them the same spending choices as an unemployed non disabled person, if a disabled person is working on minimum wage they should have the same spending choices as a non disabled minimum wage earner, if a disabled person earns £30,000 a year they should have the same spending choices as a non disabled person on the same income.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What is DLA for then?

Trying to allow a disabled person to achieve the same standard of living as a non disabled person on the same living income by covering inevitable costs of being disabled.

People do not realize that being disabled costs money before you even start - if you cannot walk then "popping down the shop for a pint of milk" becomes far more of a challenge - one that often requires money to overcome (paying for a taxi to take you there and back for instance).  Or it may be extra washing, or needing extra or more expensive equipment to do day to day things like making a couple of tea.  Or just higher heating bills - if getting cold means being restricted to bed or becoming acutely ill.

So if a disabled person is unemployed DLA should allow them the same spending choices as an unemployed non disabled person, if a disabled person is working on minimum wage they should have the same spending choices as a non disabled minimum wage earner, if a disabled person earns £30,000 a year they should have the same spending choices as a non disabled person on the same income.

Doesn't someone on ESA already get more than someone on JSA though?

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What is DLA for then?

Trying to allow a disabled person to achieve the same standard of living as a non disabled person on the same living income by covering inevitable costs of being disabled.

People do not realize that being disabled costs money before you even start - if you cannot walk then "popping down the shop for a pint of milk" becomes far more of a challenge - one that often requires money to overcome (paying for a taxi to take you there and back for instance).  Or it may be extra washing, or needing extra or more expensive equipment to do day to day things like making a couple of tea.  Or just higher heating bills - if getting cold means being restricted to bed or becoming acutely ill.

So if a disabled person is unemployed DLA should allow them the same spending choices as an unemployed non disabled person, if a disabled person is working on minimum wage they should have the same spending choices as a non disabled minimum wage earner, if a disabled person earns £30,000 a year they should have the same spending choices as a non disabled person on the same income.

Why?

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Trying to allow a disabled person to achieve the same standard of living as a non disabled person on the same living income by covering inevitable costs of being disabled.

People do not realize that being disabled costs money before you even start - if you cannot walk then "popping down the shop for a pint of milk" becomes far more of a challenge - one that often requires money to overcome (paying for a taxi to take you there and back for instance).  Or it may be extra washing, or needing extra or more expensive equipment to do day to day things like making a couple of tea.  Or just higher heating bills - if getting cold means being restricted to bed or becoming acutely ill.

So if a disabled person is unemployed DLA should allow them the same spending choices as an unemployed non disabled person, if a disabled person is working on minimum wage they should have the same spending choices as a non disabled minimum wage earner, if a disabled person earns £30,000 a year they should have the same spending choices as a non disabled person on the same income.

Doesn't someone on ESA already get more than someone on JSA though?

Yes because ESA is not a disability benefit it is a sickness benefit. It is recognized that people who are sick do not have to look for work and can be expected to have extra home costs like heating and power from being at home rather than out working or looking for work.

DLA is a disability benefit.

It is possible to be sick without being disabled, or disabled without being sick. Disabled people can and do claim JSA if they are out of work but capable of working. Non disabled people can and do claim ESA if they are too ill to work or look for work.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Trying to allow a disabled person to achieve the same standard of living as a non disabled person on the same living income by covering inevitable costs of being disabled.

People do not realize that being disabled costs money before you even start - if you cannot walk then "popping down the shop for a pint of milk" becomes far more of a challenge - one that often requires money to overcome (paying for a taxi to take you there and back for instance).  Or it may be extra washing, or needing extra or more expensive equipment to do day to day things like making a couple of tea.  Or just higher heating bills - if getting cold means being restricted to bed or becoming acutely ill.

So if a disabled person is unemployed DLA should allow them the same spending choices as an unemployed non disabled person, if a disabled person is working on minimum wage they should have the same spending choices as a non disabled minimum wage earner, if a disabled person earns £30,000 a year they should have the same spending choices as a non disabled person on the same income.

Why?

Because spending money is equated to life quality. It is suggested that if a disabled person earning the same amount as a non disabled person has to spend money on their disability their quality of life is less just because of the disability. It is considered unacceptable that a disabled person should be prevented from life quality choices because of having disability costs. It is daft little things that the non disabled may not think about - paying premiums to get ground floor accessible accommodation if staying away from home, or premiums to get an aisle seat. Very often disabled people simply cannot make the money saving choices available to non disabled - they cannot access the cheaper rooms because they are almost always inaccessible, they cannot take the cheap seats etc.

Or because it actually saves money. To the disabled person on minimum wage the extra transport costs of getting too and from work because they cannot choose to walk can mean that without the DLA they could not afford to get to work and so would have to stay unemployed.
To the disabled person on minimum wage who can get to work without extra transport costs the extra costs of getting to a course to give them improved qualifications that gets them promotion so they stay on minimum wage.

Remember looking at the bigger picture disability payments are almost always returned straight to the economy - they get spent not saved. It is spending that drives the wider economy - if every disabled person stopped spending tomorrow it would have a major impact on the whole economy.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Doesn't someone on ESA already get more than someone on JSA though?

Yes because ESA is not a disability benefit it is a sickness benefit.  It is recognized that people who are sick do not have to look for work and can be expected to have extra home costs like heating and power from being at home rather than out working or looking for work.

DLA is a disability benefit.

It is possible to be sick without being disabled, or disabled without being sick.  Disabled people can and do claim JSA if they are out of work but capable of working.  Non disabled people can and do claim ESA if they are too ill to work or look for work.

ESA is also a disability benefit. You can claim it if you work or are self employed.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/overview

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yes because ESA is not a disability benefit it is a sickness benefit.  It is recognized that people who are sick do not have to look for work and can be expected to have extra home costs like heating and power from being at home rather than out working or looking for work.

DLA is a disability benefit.

It is possible to be sick without being disabled, or disabled without being sick.  Disabled people can and do claim JSA if they are out of work but capable of working.  Non disabled people can and do claim ESA if they are too ill to work or look for work.

ESA is also a disability benefit. You can claim it if you work or are self employed.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/overview

You can only claim it if you are not fit for work - employed or self employed. It can be contribution based in which case it is paid for a set time regardless of other income (say from a partner living with you) or income based where it is only paid if you have no other income or minimal income.

It does have some allowances for working while receiving it but those are more intended for people returning to work after being ill rather than new claims for those in that situation.

As usual that page giving a government guide is really badly worded especially with the (usual) implication that "sickness" and "disability" are interchangeable concepts.

People would be a lot less confused if it was made clear that being sick does not (necessarily) make you disabled and that being disabled does not (necessarily) make you sick. This is what I seem to spend vast amounts of time getting people to see - ESA is for when a person is sick even if they are not disabled, and DLA(PIP) is for people who are disabled even or especially if they are not sick.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

ESA is also a disability benefit. You can claim it if you work or are self employed.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-support-allowance/overview

You can only claim it if you are not fit for work - employed or self employed.  It can be contribution based in which case it is paid for a set time regardless of other income (say from a partner living with you) or income based where it is only paid if you have no other income or minimal income.

It does have some allowances for working while receiving it but those are more intended for people returning to work after being ill rather than new claims for those in that situation.

As usual that page giving a government guide is really badly worded especially with the (usual) implication that "sickness" and "disability" are interchangeable concepts.

People would be a lot less confused if it was made clear that being sick does not (necessarily) make you disabled and that being disabled does not (necessarily) make you sick.  This is what I seem to spend vast amounts of time getting people to see - ESA is for when a person is sick even if they are not disabled, and DLA(PIP) is for people who are disabled even or especially if they are not sick.

It says you can claim ESA if you work part time. Surely some illnesses lead to disability, so how do you distinguish one from the other half the time?

Some people claim ESA and DLA, yes?

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You can only claim it if you are not fit for work - employed or self employed.  It can be contribution based in which case it is paid for a set time regardless of other income (say from a partner living with you) or income based where it is only paid if you have no other income or minimal income.

It does have some allowances for working while receiving it but those are more intended for people returning to work after being ill rather than new claims for those in that situation.

As usual that page giving a government guide is really badly worded especially with the (usual) implication that "sickness" and "disability" are interchangeable concepts.

People would be a lot less confused if it was made clear that being sick does not (necessarily) make you disabled and that being disabled does not (necessarily) make you sick.  This is what I seem to spend vast amounts of time getting people to see - ESA is for when a person is sick even if they are not disabled, and DLA(PIP) is for people who are disabled even or especially if they are not sick.

It says you can claim ESA if you work part time. Surely some illnesses lead to disability, so how do you distinguish one from the other half the time?

Some people claim ESA and DLA, yes?

See what i mean about badly worded?

Technically you could claim ESA if working part time the same way you could claim JSA - but seeing as to qualify for ESA you have to be unfit for work the fact that you are working part-time would tend to mean such a claim was turned down.

The area where part-time work comes into ESA is if you have been claiming and not working and are looking to return to work slowly - you can work less than 16 hours and continue to claim for up to 12 months to allow you to either build up hours slowly - start at 4 a week for a couple of months then 8 then 12 and so on so that at the end of the 12 months you are looking at working over 16 hours (because joy of joys the rules on tax credits were changed so now if you work 16 hours you cannot claim tax credits or JSA) if at the end of 12 months you are still working 4 hours you are highly likely to be transferred to JSA (so your wages from 4 hours are subtracted from your benefit and you find yourself working for nothing basically). Or you may be testing the waters - which is approximately where I am. I am looking for a few hours a week but if I find working them makes my health worse I will be able to quit the job without being sanctioned for becoming voluntarily unemployed - I would still be getting ESA throughout.

Yes some people claim both ESA and DLA - but then again some people claim JSA and DLA. Just because some people claim both does not mean that the 2 are in any way related to each other. Just because a person is entitled to DLA does not necessarily mean they are entitled to ESA and just because a person is entitled to ESA does not mean they are entitled to DLA (just like being entitled to JSA does not mean entitled to DLA or entitled to DLA mean entitled to JSA)

Try thinking about it this way - JSA and ESA are either/or - not both. A person may be entitled to one or the other but will not be entitled to both. DLA/PIP is a not/and. If a person is entitled to it they get it and the other benefit. DLA is more like child benefit in that it has qualifying criteria (have child or are disabled) and is separate from the other benefits.

I admit...this system has become far too complicated t keep up with, one would have to study this very hard or be familiar and up to date with the entire benefits system and working hours etc.

Joy Division wrote:I admit...this system has become far too complicated t keep up with, one would have to study this very hard or be familiar and up to date with the entire benefits system and working hours etc.

Why the hell do you think I am so supportive of UC?

With universal credit there is no one year limit on working part time - it is not a case of if at the end of 12 months a person is unable to work longer hours then they loose the money they are earning, so long as they are keeping to their personal agreement with their advisor they keep the extra money. At the moment if I find I can physically manage 8 hours a week but no more then after 12 months my choice is to stop work and stay on ESA or keep working but have what I am earning taken out of JSA - while no doubt being harassed by JSA to work longer hours or be sanctioned. With UC if a doctor agrees I can only work 8 hours then I can work and earn those 8 hours and still be properly supported.

Yes I know UC planning has overlooked some areas particularly regards the "disability premiums" on other benefits (Ragga I am telling you now dont ask about premiums because they are way way too complicated and are routed in previous benefits no longer available) which would mean for a very small percentage of people UC would leave them worse off but surely the logical response to this is to help the government correct the bits overlooked so nobody is worse off and introduce a system that is easy for the user to understand and calculate themselves and which means everybody gets more money if and when they work while being protected from variations in working hours that are beyond their control.

If you think we should all have the same quality of life, and that quality of life is governed by money, shouldn't we just have a communist state sphinx, and all receive the same amount?

BigAndy9 wrote:If you think we should all have the same quality of life, and that quality of life is governed by money, shouldn't we just have a communist state sphinx, and all receive the same amount?

Uh I did not say I think I explained the thinking behind DLA.

I maybe was not clear that money is used as one measure of life quality not as what governs it. One of the things that governs is is reward for effort. If a disabled person is doing the same work as non disabled people for the same wage and can see the non disabled people are able to afford a meal out once a week and a certain value car while they cannot afford the same things because of the extra costs of their disability then it is reasonable they feel less well rewarded - which (in theory) leaves then with a lower quality of life. By assuming the costs - or some of them - of being disabled the government allows the disabled person to have the meal out and afford the car so they get the same reward as their workmates.

That is of course a very simplistic demonstration and ignores such obvious things as the fact that the disabled person almost certainly has to work harder than non disabled, and that with a group of people on the same income you are highly unlikely to see the same patterns of expenditure. However it is the underpinning theory of DLA - and I for one think it an excellent concept.

Sphinx, I think you are being extremely patient, because basically BA just thinks that disabled people should be grateful for anything and put up with anything. There are some people with humanity and some people without.

It is less for Andys benefit than for the likes of Ragga who have little or no experience of the system and are left horribly confused by it with tons of horrible misunderstandings. Some of us learned about our misconceptions the hard way when we discovered the system we believed was rooted in general fairness was anything but - if I can help those who have no experience understand it a bit better before they are forced to depend on it then I have all the patience in the world. Ragga is asking intelligent questions and trying to understand - cant ask for anything more.

sphinx wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:If you think we should all have the same quality of life, and that quality of life is governed by money, shouldn't we just have a communist state sphinx, and all receive the same amount?

Uh I did not say I think I explained the thinking behind DLA.

I maybe was not clear that money is used as one measure of life quality not as what governs it.  One of the things that governs is is reward for effort.  If a disabled person is doing the same work as  non disabled people for the same wage and can see the non disabled people are able to afford a meal out once a week and a certain value car while they cannot afford the same things because of the extra costs of their disability then it is reasonable they feel less well rewarded - which (in theory) leaves then with a lower quality of life.  By assuming the costs - or some of them - of being disabled the government allows the disabled person to have the meal out and afford the car so they get the same reward as their workmates.

That is of course a very simplistic demonstration and ignores such obvious things as the fact that the disabled person almost certainly has to work harder than non disabled, and that with a group of people on the same income you are highly unlikely to see the same patterns of expenditure.   However it is the underpinning theory of DLA - and I for one think it an excellent concept.

So is DLA means tested?

Are you saying that disabled people are generally poorer than other people?

If Mr Disabled works in a bank alongside Mrs Able, doing generally the same job but Mr Disabled has more money... well what then? Should we expect Mr Disabled to give up some of his money so Mrs Able can afford the same car as her work colleague?

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Uh I did not say I think I explained the thinking behind DLA.

I maybe was not clear that money is used as one measure of life quality not as what governs it.  One of the things that governs is is reward for effort.  If a disabled person is doing the same work as  non disabled people for the same wage and can see the non disabled people are able to afford a meal out once a week and a certain value car while they cannot afford the same things because of the extra costs of their disability then it is reasonable they feel less well rewarded - which (in theory) leaves then with a lower quality of life.  By assuming the costs - or some of them - of being disabled the government allows the disabled person to have the meal out and afford the car so they get the same reward as their workmates.

That is of course a very simplistic demonstration and ignores such obvious things as the fact that the disabled person almost certainly has to work harder than non disabled, and that with a group of people on the same income you are highly unlikely to see the same patterns of expenditure.   However it is the underpinning theory of DLA - and I for one think it an excellent concept.

So is DLA means tested?

Are you saying that disabled people are generally poorer than other people?

If Mr Disabled works in a bank alongside Mrs Able, doing generally the same job but Mr Disabled has more money...  well what then?  Should we expect Mr Disabled to give up some of his money so Mrs Able can afford the same car as her work colleague?

No DLA is not means tested.

I am not saying I am referring to what studies and evidence has shown. Disabled people have costs that non disabled people do not - a disabled person will require extra money to have the same choices a non disabled person does not.

A disabled person working in a bank doing the same job as a non disabled person will be paid the same as the non disabled person - they will not have more money from doing that. If they do not get a top up from DLA the non disabled person is always going to be better off than them while earning the same amount of money.

The focus of the matter is if you are disabled you will have to spend money non disabled people do not. You will be denied choices to spend less money that non disabled people take for granted.

sphinx wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


So is DLA means tested?

Are you saying that disabled people are generally poorer than other people?

If Mr Disabled works in a bank alongside Mrs Able, doing generally the same job but Mr Disabled has more money...  well what then?  Should we expect Mr Disabled to give up some of his money so Mrs Able can afford the same car as her work colleague?

No DLA is not means tested.

I am not saying I am referring to what studies and evidence has shown.  Disabled people have costs that non disabled people do not - a disabled person will require extra money to have the same choices a non disabled person does not.

A disabled person working in a bank doing the same job as a non disabled person will be paid the same as the non disabled person - they will not have more money from doing that.  If they do not get a top up from DLA the non disabled person is always going to be better off than them while earning the same amount of money.

The focus of the matter is if you are disabled you will have to spend money non disabled people do not.  You will be denied choices to spend less money that non disabled people take for granted.  

I don't really like looking at it that way. Most people are not equal when it comes to spending power even if they earn the same money because they might have extra travel expenses or whatever. Employers don't generally take expenses into account when it comes to pay. A lot of people do a difficult job and get paid less than someone who has an easier job. Many people can't afford any holiday, let alone one with an aisle seat on a plane.

My point is sphinx, we could think of many many peoples' circumstances for them being worse off than others - we don't "top them up" so we all have the same living standards, do we?

BigAndy9 wrote:My point is sphinx, we could think of many many peoples' circumstances for them being worse off than others - we don't "top them up" so we all have the same living standards, do we?

Yes, that's kind of what I think too.

I don't know how they decide if someone should have DLA. What if a disabled person has a job down the road - no public transport needed, or a shop next door to them?

I just don't like looking at it in terms of being able to afford meals out or holidays either.

Some people have jobs where they get paid if they're off sick, and others don't. What about those with intermittent conditions which means they sometimes have to call in sick? Maybe they won't get paid at all if they miss work.

Raggamuffin wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:My point is sphinx, we could think of many many peoples' circumstances for them being worse off than others - we don't "top them up" so we all have the same living standards, do we?

Yes, that's kind of what I think too.

I don't know how they decide if someone should have DLA. What if a disabled person has a job down the road - no public transport needed, or a shop next door to them?

I just don't like looking at it in terms of being able to afford meals out or holidays either.

Some people have jobs where they get paid if they're off sick, and others don't. What about those with intermittent conditions which means they sometimes have to call in sick? Maybe they won't get paid at all if they miss work.

Spot on with all of that Ragga, there are so many examples, as i've said, the country has adapted so much that i don't think disabled people are hugely disadvantaged these days.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, that's kind of what I think too.

I don't know how they decide if someone should have DLA. What if a disabled person has a job down the road - no public transport needed, or a shop next door to them?

I just don't like looking at it in terms of being able to afford meals out or holidays either.

Some people have jobs where they get paid if they're off sick, and others don't. What about those with intermittent conditions which means they sometimes have to call in sick? Maybe they won't get paid at all if they miss work.

Spot on with all of that Ragga, there are so many examples, as i've said, the country has adapted so much that i don't think disabled people are hugely disadvantaged these days.

I know some disabled people and they all seem pretty well off to me - better off than most tbh.   

Raggamuffin wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Spot on with all of that Ragga, there are so many examples, as i've said, the country has adapted so much that i don't think disabled people are hugely disadvantaged these days.

I know some disabled people and they all seem pretty well off to me - better off than most tbh.   

Same here - financially, of course.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I know some disabled people and they all seem pretty well off to me - better off than most tbh.   

Same here - financially, of course.

Yes, that's what I mean.

I can't help but feel more sorry for the people who have to work every day in jobs they probably hate. I think that's totally soul-destroying.

Raggamuffin wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Same here - financially, of course.

Yes, that's what I mean.

I can't help but feel more sorry for the people who have to work every day in jobs they probably hate. I think that's totally soul-destroying.

Yeeeeees... must... be... sh1t!


  

You guys are thinking too big - you are comparing apples with oranges and saying hey the cleaner cant do what the manager does.

Think smaller.

DLA is based on identical except for disability. Yes it is a legal fiction but most laws are defined on legal fictions to make them understandable.

Try this.

You have identical twins. One is disabled one is not. They live with their parents. They leave school with identical results. An employer advertises 2 identical positions with identical pay that both could do.

Only difference is the non disabled twin can walk half an hour to get to work - so getting to work costs him nothing. The disabled twin cannot walk and needs transport which means getting to work costs him money. The pay from the job is not high enough to cover transport costs.

So you can have it so the disabled twin cannot get a job because he cannot afford transport necessary because of his disability.

Or the costs of the transport are covered so the disabled twin can get a job just the same as everyone else.

My talking about holidays was because these days holidays are used as a measure of poverty - blame the Rowntree foundation.

Disabled people who seem financially well off may be - because they made the same choices as non disabled people who are well off. Or they may seem it because they have what non disabled people consider luxuries like a car. When a person cannot walk a car is not a luxury. Think of the 101 things a non disabled person will do during the week that involve walking - going to see friends, having a couple of pints down the pub not using a car, getting out the house after a row, going to a local shop to pick up something forgotten on the main shop. Now try and imagine never being able to do any of those things. Then tell me that is being better off. If you think that is better off the answer is simple - go to your local railway line and place both of your legs across one of the rails as a train approaches. You will then find yourself disabled and be able to claim PIP - the benefit replacing DLA. If you think £57 a week is worth not having legs for then go for it.

Do you not think disabled people dont have to work in low paid jobs they find soul destroying?

Mind you if we stopped giving them benefits they wouldnt have to do those soul destroying low paid jobs because they would not be able to afford to get to them - so they could spend their existences unemployed on benefits living even crappier lives than the non disabled on unemployment benefits because they would not be able to do the same things.

sphinx wrote:You guys are thinking too big - you are comparing apples with oranges and saying hey the cleaner cant do what the manager does.

Think smaller.

DLA is based on identical except for disability. Yes it is a legal fiction but most laws are defined on legal fictions to make them understandable.

Try this.

You have identical twins. One is disabled one is not.  They live with their parents.  They leave school with identical results.  An employer advertises 2 identical positions with identical pay that both could do.

Only difference is the non disabled twin can walk half an hour to get to work - so getting to work costs him nothing.  The disabled twin cannot walk and needs transport which means getting to work costs him money.  The pay from the job is not high enough to cover transport costs.

So you can have it so the disabled twin cannot get a job because he cannot afford transport necessary because of his disability.

Or the costs of the transport are covered so the disabled twin can get a job just the same as everyone else.

My talking about holidays was because these days holidays are used as a measure of poverty - blame the Rowntree foundation.

Disabled people who seem financially well off may be - because they made the same choices as non disabled people who are well off.  Or they may seem it because they have what non disabled people consider luxuries like a car.  When a person cannot walk a car is not a luxury.  Think of the 101 things a non disabled person will do during the week that involve walking - going to see friends, having a couple of pints down the pub not using a car, getting out the house after a row, going to a local shop to pick up something forgotten on the main shop.  Now try and imagine never being able to do any of those things.  Then tell me that is being better off.  If you think that is better off the answer is simple - go to your local railway line and place both of your legs across one of the rails as a train approaches.  You will then find yourself disabled and be able to claim PIP - the benefit replacing DLA.  If you think £57 a week is worth not having legs for then go for it.  

+100 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think Sphinx you have to go with my theory that people like BA and sometimes it seems Rags, have the empathy button missing, they simply don't have what it takes to be able to understand any other person's struggles that they don't have to cope with.

sphinx wrote:You guys are thinking too big - you are comparing apples with oranges and saying hey the cleaner cant do what the manager does.

Think smaller.

DLA is based on identical except for disability. Yes it is a legal fiction but most laws are defined on legal fictions to make them understandable.

Try this.

You have identical twins. One is disabled one is not.  They live with their parents.  They leave school with identical results.  An employer advertises 2 identical positions with identical pay that both could do.

Only difference is the non disabled twin can walk half an hour to get to work - so getting to work costs him nothing.  The disabled twin cannot walk and needs transport which means getting to work costs him money.  The pay from the job is not high enough to cover transport costs.

So you can have it so the disabled twin cannot get a job because he cannot afford transport necessary because of his disability.

Or the costs of the transport are covered so the disabled twin can get a job just the same as everyone else.

My talking about holidays was because these days holidays are used as a measure of poverty - blame the Rowntree foundation.

Disabled people who seem financially well off may be - because they made the same choices as non disabled people who are well off.  Or they may seem it because they have what non disabled people consider luxuries like a car.  When a person cannot walk a car is not a luxury.  Think of the 101 things a non disabled person will do during the week that involve walking - going to see friends, having a couple of pints down the pub not using a car, getting out the house after a row, going to a local shop to pick up something forgotten on the main shop.  Now try and imagine never being able to do any of those things.  Then tell me that is being better off.  If you think that is better off the answer is simple - go to your local railway line and place both of your legs across one of the rails as a train approaches.  You will then find yourself disabled and be able to claim PIP - the benefit replacing DLA.  If you think £57 a week is worth not having legs for then go for it.  

But life is about comparing apples and oranges isn't it? Hardly any two people are in exactly the same position except for one factor.

I think I feel a particular sympathy for those in low paid jobs which they also hate because they have no choice but to keep on doing them. I just don't like the way you're talking about "spending power" on things which are frankly luxuries. That's not what benefits are supposed to be about is it? I can see the case for transport costs, but that's a specific issue and surely it depends on the specific transport requirements.

Whenever I walk past a disabled parking bay, all the cars are shiny and new! Some people can't afford even an old car.

sphinx wrote:Do you not think disabled people dont have to work in low paid jobs they find soul destroying?

Mind you if we stopped giving them benefits they wouldnt have to do those soul destroying low paid jobs because they would not be able to afford to get to them - so they could spend their existences unemployed on benefits living even crappier lives than the non disabled on unemployment benefits because they would not be able to do the same things.

Well if they can get ESA and DLA, no they don't.

See what I mean Sphinx?

Sassy wrote:I think Sphinx you have to go with my theory that people like BA and sometimes it seems Rags, have the empathy button missing, they simply don't have what it takes to be able to understand any other person's struggles that they don't have to cope with.

Get off your high horse for once. Do you have any empathy for people who have to work in jobs which suck the life out of them, or are you too busy congratulating yourself because you don't even have to get out of bed in the morning?

And there you go again sphinx, going on about the worst case scenario - people with no legs.

I read a post on some forum or other from a person who hated their job so much that they almost wished they were disabled. How awful is that?

BigAndy9 wrote:And there you go again sphinx, going on about the worst case scenario - people with no legs.

Yes. It's not just about people who literally can't walk anyway - there are other types of disability.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:Do you not think disabled people dont have to work in low paid jobs they find soul destroying?

Mind you if we stopped giving them benefits they wouldnt have to do those soul destroying low paid jobs because they would not be able to afford to get to them - so they could spend their existences unemployed on benefits living even crappier lives than the non disabled on unemployment benefits because they would not be able to do the same things.

Well if they can get ESA and DLA, no they don't.

Again ESA is for sick people not disabled people.

Just because a disabled person is not working does not mean they get ESA - unless they are sick as well as disabled they will get JSA.

People do not live on DLA - that is not what it is for.

Also I was trying to explain what would happen if you got rid of DLA. You would have a lot of disabled people becoming unemployed because without DLA they could not afford to stay employed. They would go onto JSA not ESA because they would not be sick. On JSA their lives would be much worse than the non disabled on JSA because they could not do what the non disabled take for granted like walk to town to look for work or get shopping. Under current rules in fact many would not be able to get to the job centre to sign on and would be kicked off JSA and be left with no income at all.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:I think Sphinx you have to go with my theory that people like BA and sometimes it seems Rags, have the empathy button missing, they simply don't have what it takes to be able to understand any other person's struggles that they don't have to cope with.

Get off your high horse for once. Do you have any empathy for people who have to work in jobs which suck the life out of them, or are you too busy congratulating yourself because you don't even have to get out of bed in the morning?

I worked all my life, and I have a great deal of empathy for people stuck in dead end jobs, bored out of their skulls. I also have empathy for people who do exactly the same jobs, but in between can't get out of the house, because they are disabled and it has taken them all the little money they have to get to those dead end jobs, while their workmates can do things as simple as walking to a museum and looking around to releave their boredom at weekends, or taking a walk in the park, and they can't.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well if they can get ESA and DLA, no they don't.

Again ESA is for sick people not disabled people.

Just because a disabled person is not working does not mean they get ESA - unless they are sick as well as disabled they will get JSA.

People do not live on DLA - that is not what it is for.

Also I was trying to explain what would happen if you got rid of DLA.  You would have a lot of disabled people becoming unemployed because without DLA they could not afford to stay employed.  They would go onto JSA not ESA because they would not be sick.  On JSA their lives would be much worse than the non disabled on JSA because they could not do what the non disabled take for granted like walk to town to look for work or get shopping.  Under current rules in fact many would not be able to get to the job centre to sign on and would be kicked off JSA and be left with no income at all.

Well some illnesses lead to disability, and the Government website says it's for sick or disabled people.

People on JSA have the expense of going to interviews though.

You can get your shopping delivered these days - loads of people I know do their shopping online.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't get ESA, I'm just not sure about DLA because it's not means tested. If someone has a load of money, they wouldn't need it would they? As I understand it, some people can get both ESA and DLA.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well if they can get ESA and DLA, no they don't.

Again ESA is for sick people not disabled people.

Just because a disabled person is not working does not mean they get ESA - unless they are sick as well as disabled they will get JSA.

People do not live on DLA - that is not what it is for.

Also I was trying to explain what would happen if you got rid of DLA.  You would have a lot of disabled people becoming unemployed because without DLA they could not afford to stay employed.  They would go onto JSA not ESA because they would not be sick.  On JSA their lives would be much worse than the non disabled on JSA because they could not do what the non disabled take for granted like walk to town to look for work or get shopping.  Under current rules in fact many would not be able to get to the job centre to sign on and would be kicked off JSA and be left with no income at all.

Sphinx, why bother, they are not putting up objections because they don't understand, they are putting up objections because they are WUMs, and nasty ones at that.

Yes there are other types of disability - but you two are going on as if disabled people never get the crap non disabled people do. Disabled people get exactly the same crap as well as the extra helpings that come with disability.

Disabled people are stuck in crappy dead end jobs they cannot afford to leave because they have mortgages, child support, loan repayments etc exactly the same as non disabled people.

Any horrible situation that you suggest applies to a non disabled person can apply equally to a disabled person as well.

I suggested the loosing both legs because that is the quickest easiest sure fire way of becoming disabled. Loose just one leg and there is a good chance the government will decide that actually that is not a disability and you do not need DLA/PIP - so you get no extra money even though your life is now ten times more difficult.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Get off your high horse for once. Do you have any empathy for people who have to work in jobs which suck the life out of them, or are you too busy congratulating yourself because you don't even have to get out of bed in the morning?

I worked all my life, and I have a great deal of empathy for people stuck in dead end jobs, bored out of their skulls.   I also have empathy for people who do exactly the same jobs, but in between can't get out of the house, because they are disabled and it has taken them all the little money they have to get to those dead end jobs, while their workmates can do things as simple as walking to a museum and looking around to releave their boredom at weekends, or taking a walk in the park, and they can't.

Well kindly let me choose who I have empathy for when it comes to the subject of employment and keep your judgemental views to yourself. You're not better than me you know, even though you seem to think you are.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Again ESA is for sick people not disabled people.

Just because a disabled person is not working does not mean they get ESA - unless they are sick as well as disabled they will get JSA.

People do not live on DLA - that is not what it is for.

Also I was trying to explain what would happen if you got rid of DLA.  You would have a lot of disabled people becoming unemployed because without DLA they could not afford to stay employed.  They would go onto JSA not ESA because they would not be sick.  On JSA their lives would be much worse than the non disabled on JSA because they could not do what the non disabled take for granted like walk to town to look for work or get shopping.  Under current rules in fact many would not be able to get to the job centre to sign on and would be kicked off JSA and be left with no income at all.

Sphinx, why bother, they are not putting up objections because they don't understand, they are putting up objections because they are WUMs, and nasty ones at that.

Stop trolling. This is a good thread and you are disrupting it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

I worked all my life, and I have a great deal of empathy for people stuck in dead end jobs, bored out of their skulls.   I also have empathy for people who do exactly the same jobs, but in between can't get out of the house, because they are disabled and it has taken them all the little money they have to get to those dead end jobs, while their workmates can do things as simple as walking to a museum and looking around to releave their boredom at weekends, or taking a walk in the park, and they can't.

Well kindly let me choose who I have empathy for when it comes to the subject of employment and keep your judgemental views to yourself. You're not better than me you know, even though you seem to think you are.

Anyone who can see the plight of disabled people when you can't is better than you Rags, because you go out of your way to be as un-understanding of their situation as you possibly can.

If you walk out of your house tomorrow and get knocked over and disabled, you might wish you hadn't.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Again ESA is for sick people not disabled people.

Just because a disabled person is not working does not mean they get ESA - unless they are sick as well as disabled they will get JSA.

People do not live on DLA - that is not what it is for.

Also I was trying to explain what would happen if you got rid of DLA.  You would have a lot of disabled people becoming unemployed because without DLA they could not afford to stay employed.  They would go onto JSA not ESA because they would not be sick.  On JSA their lives would be much worse than the non disabled on JSA because they could not do what the non disabled take for granted like walk to town to look for work or get shopping.  Under current rules in fact many would not be able to get to the job centre to sign on and would be kicked off JSA and be left with no income at all.

Sphinx, why bother, they are not putting up objections because they don't understand, they are putting up objections because they are WUMs, and nasty ones at that.

Go away Sassy.

Anyway, re this fund to pay for one-off things, I'm not against that. You can get wheelchairs which go up and down, which might be better than moving light switches and stuff. They look good!

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Sphinx, why bother, they are not putting up objections because they don't understand, they are putting up objections because they are WUMs, and nasty ones at that.

Go away Sassy.

Fuck off BA  ::D:: 

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well kindly let me choose who I have empathy for when it comes to the subject of employment and keep your judgemental views to yourself. You're not better than me you know, even though you seem to think you are.

Anyone who can see the plight of disabled people when you can't is better than you Rags, because you go out of your way to be as un-understanding of their situation as you possibly can.

If you walk out of your house tomorrow and get knocked over and disabled, you might wish you hadn't.

Oh shut your gob and try to debate the subject.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Anyone who can see the plight of disabled people when you can't is better than you Rags, because you go out of your way to be as un-understanding of their situation as you possibly can.

If you walk out of your house tomorrow and get knocked over and disabled, you might wish you hadn't.

Oh shut your gob and try to debate the subject.

I am, the subject is about the extra money disabled people need and why, and you are deliberately pretending not to understand to be a WUM. Simples.