Double amputee killed himself after benefits slashed, say anguished family

A DOUBLE amputee died in an apparent suicide fewer than 48 hours after being told an allowance to pay his carer was being slashed by two thirds, his sister claims.

Mark Cotton, 54, had lost both his legs due to a medical condition and relied on paid help which had been agreed with the authorities.

But he was visited for a re-assessment and four days later received a telephone call to say the allowance for paid care was being cut from nine hours a week to only three.

Fewer than 48 hours later he was found dead at his home in Sevenoaks Mead, Allerton, Bradford, after apparently taking an overdose of the painkillers he needed because of his illness.

His sister Jjeneen Sherington said he had left a note and hit out: "They are the cause of his death in my eyes.

"He would still have been here if this hadn't happened".

Mr Cotton lost one leg in 2010 and returned to work in a teaching role after that but his deteriorating health meant his remaining leg was amputated in 2012.

Even before the second amputation he had needed care and Jjeneen was paid for nine hours a week, though said in reality she spent more time assisting him and could not work as a result.

"When he was told he was being re-assessed he thought because his circumstances were worse, they might give him more money.
PROMOTED STORIES

Recommended by

"Then they phoned to say they were reducing his money," she said.

That worked out as a reduction in paid for care from nine to three hours a week, she said, and during his re-assessment interview, Mark had been asked if he could do his own ironing while sitting down, one of the tasks normally done by his sister.

"We were going to fight the decision, through Citizens' Advice and his MP," she said.

"He had loved his work and wanted to get back to a job. He had put himself through university and had started a course to learn a foreign language in the hope of being able to teach that, but his health meant he had to give it up.

"He had always worked and put into the country, but this was what he got back.

"The paramedics said he must have been in a lot of pain, because of the medication he had been given," she said.

A spokesman for Bradford Council said: “We are aware of the tragic death of Mr Cotton, who was known to Bradford Adult Services, and our thoughts are with his family.

“Investigations will be carried out into the circumstances of this case and it would be inappropriate to comment until those investigations have been completed,” he said.

West Yorkshire Police confirmed that a 54-year-old man was found dead after a call was made for an ambulance at 8.17am on Thursday, with no suspicious circumstances.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11604492.Double_amputee_killed_himself_after_benefits_slashed__say_anguished_family/?ref=twtrec

And they are planning more cuts, they don't give a fuck about people dying, they probably clap.

But if you criticise the vile policies of IDS, Gideon and Dave, you become the big bad wolf.

What a poor misleading story.
So it was his sister that was getting paid for providing some care to him and it is the sister who claims he committed suicide to less pay being given to his sister for care he was given by her?
Really, the whole story smells like a rat to me.
Yes it is sad he has lost his legs where many other people are able to work of which the story even eludes to him working and clearly able to being asked on his ability to do things.
Was this around his mental health and the loss of limbs that led to him taking his own life?
As how is pay for his sister going to effect him personally?

Sypathetic tory.

Sypathetic tory.

Handy Andy wrote:Sypathetic tory.

Again you prove what a child you are, as it is easy to see past the poor claims being made here. I suggest you read the full story again as I did.

Whatever he has said HA, you know that anyone who doesn't think this is disgusting and not acceptable in Britain in 2015 has something very wrong with them.

risingsun wrote:Whatever he has said HA, you know that anyone who doesn't think this is disgusting and not acceptable in Britain in 2015 has something very wrong with them.  

You know exactly what I have said hence why you have no answer to my valid points.
This is about an allowance to pay for a carer, his carer being his sister. It is not actually money for the individual but for a carer.
Its a cock and bull story invented by the sister, as it was her that stood to lose money.

I will ad another massive point here because the lefties on here are such wet fish. The fact is many amputee's get by in life without any carers, because they learn to be self reliant. To place a view on people they always need carers is wrong and unnecessary. Only in extreme cases will carers be always needed.  At first they will need carers to learn to adjust but as time goes on they should be learning to be self reliant to provide full independence for people. Many disabled people do not want to be treated different and it shows how any wet lefties certainly do not know any people or work with people with disabilities as I do. This is why disgustingly as per usual the left try to play off a story which has no theory behind as to why he would have killed himself. This allowance was to pay for a carer not money for himself, so there is no reason how this would have effected him, it only would have effected pay for his sister.

Hmm to be fair I am sort of with DIdge here.
What does the suicide note say?

It could've said "I can't live like this any longer and I don't want to go on. I hate my life and just want to end it all"

Does it specifically say "Due to my benefits being cut I no longer wish to live"??

That's the problem with these stories sometimes; they are very vague and non-specific.
Of course it's disgusting to cut someone's money and of course it is awful for a man to commit suicide, but nowhere in this sorry tale does it mean that one is responsible for the other.

Disgusting by any standards anyone would want to place on this. Here we have a man who worked as a teacher and even after having one leg amputated he returned to work until he had his other leg amputated.
And his sister is doing what this government have been telling people all along to do and look after and care for family members who need help and she gets blasted with a load of crap as well for doing just that.
Reducing the mans help from 9 hours per week to just 3 is petty and ridiculous  and sums up just how uncaring this is.
Get them out.

Irn Bru wrote:Disgusting by any standards anyone would want to place on this. Here we have a man who worked as a teacher and even after having one leg amputated he returned to work until he had his other leg amputated.
And his sister is doing what this government have been telling people all along to do and look after and care for family members who need help and she gets blasted with a load of crap as well for doing just that.
Reducing the mans help from 9 hours per week to just 3 is petty and ridiculous  and sums up just how uncaring this is.
Get them out.

Another left wing muppet disgustingly playing off this story where no wrong was done.
So tell me Irn how did this person manage to cope being that he has no paid care for the other 159 hours of the week?
Reducing the man's hours was clearly down to his own admission of what he was able to do, but of course beingt he wet fish that you are you do not see this. What this is about is his sister trying to gain moeny of his death, that is what is disgusting

You are sick in the head, Didge.
Beneath the gutter.

Handy Andy wrote:You are sick in the head, Didge.
Beneath the gutter.

Because I actually say what is correct and true that you lefties try to manipulate stories like this for political purposes.
I think you will find it is those that try to use the death of an indvidual purpose to promote their political views that is sick.
I mean for example what did you say on this very fact about the thread you started on Cameron?
Or do I need to show further evidence of your utter hypocrisy?

In the OP the sentence to take notice of is ...
A spokesman for Bradford Council said: “We are aware of the tragic death of Mr Cotton, who was known to Bradford Adult Services, and our thoughts are with his family.

I'm totally sure that he'd been without both legs for well on three years now but only just now decided to OD on pain meds, and that the reduction in his benefits had NOTHING to do with the fact that he killed himself less than two days later.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm totally sure that he'd been without both legs for well on three years now but only just now decided to OD on pain meds, and that the reduction in his benefits had NOTHING to do with the fact that he killed himself less than two days later.

Again this is why the left are utterly clueless as at no point did he himself lose any payment on benefits, this was pay for his carer where again the view is to help people become self reliant, not that they are dependent on carers.
He had an assessment and clearly must have shown he was able to do more than he did before and as seen is able to do many things for the other 159 hours of the week.
This is why the left want to make people reliant on others and have no motivation and self belief, they want all disabled people to be relaint on others and have no dignity.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm totally sure that he'd been without both legs for well on three years now but only just now decided to OD on pain meds, and that the reduction in his benefits had NOTHING to do with the fact that he killed himself less than two days later.

Quite!

Nems wrote:In the OP the sentence to take notice of is ...
A spokesman for Bradford Council said: “We are aware of the tragic death of Mr Cotton, who was known to Bradford Adult Services, and our thoughts are with his family.

Really?

Would have been very odd if they hadn't known of him as they would have been providing the care he got.

http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/health_well-being_and_care/adult_care

Quite crap was indeed the point Ben was makiing and I am glad we do not have people like him to ensure people are always reliant on others.
It shows Ben has little knowledge or working with people who have disabilities

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm totally sure that he'd been without both legs for well on three years now but only just now decided to OD on pain meds, and that the reduction in his benefits had NOTHING to do with the fact that he killed himself less than two days later.

Again this is why the left are utterly clueless as at no point did he himself lose any payment on benefits, this was pay for his carer where again the view is to help people become self reliant, not that they are dependent on carers.
He had an assessment and clearly must have shown he was able to do more than he did before and as seen is able to do many things for the other 159 hours of the week.
This is why the left want to make people reliant on others and have no motivation and self belief, they want all disabled people to be relaint on others and have no dignity.

And is a carer not a benefit?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Again this is why the left are utterly clueless as at no point did he himself lose any payment on benefits, this was pay for his carer where again the view is to help people become self reliant, not that they are dependent on carers.
He had an assessment and clearly must have shown he was able to do more than he did before and as seen is able to do many things for the other 159 hours of the week.
This is why the left want to make people reliant on others and have no motivation and self belief, they want all disabled people to be relaint on others and have no dignity.

And is a carer not a benefit?

A carer was his sister or did you not read that part again.
Again explain to me how he managed for the other 159 hours Ben?

There's obviously a lot to this. First of all, the poor chap had some medical condition, which has not been described, but I'm going to assume it was an ongoing thing, and he possibly had other issues, and probably a lot of pain if he was on strong painkillers.

I doubt that cutting the hours of paid care was directly the cause of him deciding to kill himself, but it might have been a last straw kind of thing. Perhaps he felt that his sister would not be able to come round so much or something? Perhaps the idea of fighting the decision just wore him out? Perhaps he felt it was one injustice too far?

Re his sister, I wouldn't judge her too much - she lost her brother, and she was clearly very fond of him. It's perfectly natural to look for answers when someone kills themselves, and it's perfectly natural to look for someone to blame as well.

Raggamuffin wrote:There's obviously a lot to this. First of all, the poor chap had some medical condition, which has not been described, but I'm going to assume it was an ongoing thing, and he possibly had other issues, and probably a lot of pain if he was on strong painkillers.

I doubt that cutting the hours of paid care was directly the cause of him deciding to kill himself, but it might have been a last straw kind of thing. Perhaps he felt that his sister would not be able to come round so much or something? Perhaps the idea of fighting the decision just wore him out? Perhaps he felt it was one injustice too far?

Re his sister, I wouldn't judge her too much - she lost her brother, and she was clearly very fond of him. It's perfectly natural to look for answers when someone kills themselves, and it's perfectly natural to look for someone to blame as well.

Fair points, I just get tired of how the left use such stories for political gain, where clearly there is much more to this story, and yet clearly people are going off a media account. It shows the limitations of doing so.

Fact: the man's help was cut to three hours per week.

Fact: Less than two days after the cut, he killed himself.

I don't think anybody's exactly leaping to conclusions here. This is a man who, with help, was surviving. His help was cut and less than 48 hours later, he gave up on existing. It probably was indeed the last straw for a person whose life has been very hard for a long time.

That doesn't outrage me because of the political party of whomever might or might not have been responsible for what happened; it outrages me because it's wrong. I promise, I'd be just as outraged for this man if a lefty government had been in place -- and to me, making the reporting of what happened to him out to be some sort of fake lefty outrage gauged to score political points is nauseatingly cynical.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Fact: the man's help was cut to three hours per week.

Fact: Less than two days after the cut, he killed himself.

I don't think anybody's exactly leaping to conclusions here. This is a man who, with help, was surviving. His help was cut and less than 48 hours later, he gave up on existing. It probably was indeed the last straw for a person whose life has been very hard for a long time.

That doesn't outrage me because of the political party of whomever might or might not have been responsible for what happened; it outrages me because it's wrong. I promise, I'd be just as outraged for this man if a lefty government had been in place -- and to me, making the reporting of what happened to him out to be some sort of fake lefty outrage gauged to score political points is nauseatingly cynical.

Incorrect, I suggest you read again, it was paid help that was reduced, not the help itself because the sister stated quite clearly that she often did more hours than was paid for, showing again how the left fail to read the article.
So that is not a fact, first mistake

Is it wrong to cut paid hours if a person is capable to do more themselves?
No, you have no idea of the test results and are going off an inflammatory media report which does not spell out the full picture, which does not surprise me with the left. Again you failed to answer how he managed to cope the other 159 hours per week?

Try again

Ben_Reilly wrote:Fact: the man's help was cut to three hours per week.

Fact: Less than two days after the cut, he killed himself.

I don't think anybody's exactly leaping to conclusions here. This is a man who, with help, was surviving. His help was cut and less than 48 hours later, he gave up on existing. It probably was indeed the last straw for a person whose life has been very hard for a long time.

That doesn't outrage me because of the political party of whomever might or might not have been responsible for what happened; it outrages me because it's wrong. I promise, I'd be just as outraged for this man if a lefty government had been in place -- and to me, making the reporting of what happened to him out to be some sort of fake lefty outrage gauged to score political points is nauseatingly cynical.

Yes, it might have been the last straw. It's not clear how mobile this chap was, or how much help he needed. Ironing was mentioned, which isn't really an essential thing tbh, and it suggests that he perhaps was able to go out. There's no information as to whether he needed personal care. It does say that his sister did more care than she got paid for, but it doesn't say what kind. Perhaps she relied on the money she got, and without it, she might have had to look for a job - perhaps that upset him?

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Fact: the man's help was cut to three hours per week.

Fact: Less than two days after the cut, he killed himself.

I don't think anybody's exactly leaping to conclusions here. This is a man who, with help, was surviving. His help was cut and less than 48 hours later, he gave up on existing. It probably was indeed the last straw for a person whose life has been very hard for a long time.

That doesn't outrage me because of the political party of whomever might or might not have been responsible for what happened; it outrages me because it's wrong. I promise, I'd be just as outraged for this man if a lefty government had been in place -- and to me, making the reporting of what happened to him out to be some sort of fake lefty outrage gauged to score political points is nauseatingly cynical.

Incorrect, I suggest you read again, it was paid help that was reduced, not the help itself because the sister stated quite clearly that she often did more hours than was paid for, showing again how the left fail to read the article.
So that is not a fact, first mistake

Is it wrong to cut paid hours if a person is capable to do more themselves?
No, you have no idea of the test results and are going off an inflammatory media report which does not spell out the full picture, which does not surprise me with the left. Again you failed to answer how he managed to cope the other 159 hours per week?

Try again

My god, you will do absolutely anything to not see the bare facts of this story, will you not? Are you that beholden to Cameron that you can't even put two and two together without his say-so?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Incorrect, I suggest you read again, it was paid help that was reduced, not the help itself because the sister stated quite clearly that she often did more hours than was paid for, showing again how the left fail to read the article.
So that is not a fact, first mistake

Is it wrong to cut paid hours if a person is capable to do more themselves?
No, you have no idea of the test results and are going off an inflammatory media report which does not spell out the full picture, which does not surprise me with the left. Again you failed to answer how he managed to cope the other 159 hours per week?

Try again

My god, you will do absolutely anything to not see the bare facts of this story, will you not? Are you that beholden to Cameron that you can't even put two and two together without his say-so?

The problem is that we do only have the bare facts. We know nothing about his degree of disability, whether his sister lived with him or not, or what other comorbid conditions he might have had. We don't know if he was depressed in any way prior to the hours being cut, and we don't know what other benefits he got.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Incorrect, I suggest you read again, it was paid help that was reduced, not the help itself because the sister stated quite clearly that she often did more hours than was paid for, showing again how the left fail to read the article.
So that is not a fact, first mistake

Is it wrong to cut paid hours if a person is capable to do more themselves?
No, you have no idea of the test results and are going off an inflammatory media report which does not spell out the full picture, which does not surprise me with the left. Again you failed to answer how he managed to cope the other 159 hours per week?

Try again

My god, you will do absolutely anything to not see the bare facts of this story, will you not? Are you that beholden to Cameron that you can't even put two and two together without his say-so?

What bare facts?
You see this is you acting like a 2 year old yet again.
Then you prove how you are a two year old by bringing Cameron into this with me.
Let me make this clear dumbo, I think all the parties are shit and that the Tories are the best of a very bad bunch.
Do you need me to continually spell this out for you?
Now grow the fuck up

Well, we know he didn't have any legs. We know he hadn't had any legs since 2012. We know his sister cared for him. We know her pay was cut. We know he killed himself less than two days later.

Seriously. If this had happened under Blair's government, would either of you be pleading for everyone to hold off on judgement until everyone understood perfectly every minute detail of what happened here?

Shit no, you'd be calling for Blair's head on a plate. The difference between you and the oh-so-reviled left is that the left would be, too.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, we know he didn't have any legs. We know he hadn't had any legs since 2012. We know his sister cared for him. We know her pay was cut. We know he killed himself less than two days later.

Seriously. If this had happened under Blair's government, would either of you be pleading for everyone to hold off on judgement until everyone understood perfectly every minute detail of what happened here?

Shit no, you'd be calling for his head on a plate. The difference between you and the oh-so-reviled left is that the left would be, too.

It has nothing to do with any political party and it never did.
We have no understanding why he killed himself but you just said his sisters pay was cut, how on earth would that push him over the edge, as he is not having his sister care for him any less. It would effect her.
So again how would this push him over the edge, when she was already providing unpaid care?

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm totally sure that he'd been without both legs for well on three years now but only just now decided to OD on pain meds, and that the reduction in his benefits had NOTHING to do with the fact that he killed himself less than two days later.

Again this is why the left are utterly clueless as at no point did he himself lose any payment on benefits, this was pay for his carer where again the view is to help people become self reliant, not that they are dependent on carers.
He had an assessment and clearly must have shown he was able to do more than he did before and as seen is able to do many things for the other 159 hours of the week.
This is why the left want to make people reliant on others and have no motivation and self belief, they want all disabled people to be relaint on others and have no dignity.

Your last point was interesting. Obviously, it depends on the degree of disability, but I believe in people trying to help themselves as much as possible, so just sticking them on benefits without addressing the underlying reasons for the disability, and addressing the possibility of improving the disability is not necessarily going to solve the problem. I think that applies particularly to mental health issues.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, we know he didn't have any legs. We know he hadn't had any legs since 2012. We know his sister cared for him. We know her pay was cut. We know he killed himself less than two days later.

Seriously. If this had happened under Blair's government, would either of you be pleading for everyone to hold off on judgement until everyone understood perfectly every minute detail of what happened here?

Shit no, you'd be calling for Blair's head on a plate. The difference between you and the oh-so-reviled left is that the left would be, too.

Oscar Pistorius doesn't have any legs either. Sorry if that's a bad example, given the circumstances, but he manages pretty well.

Of course one needs to know more details in order to make a judgement. All these demands for people to "condemn" something without knowing all the facts is a bit tiresome really.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm totally sure that he'd been without both legs for well on three years now but only just now decided to OD on pain meds, and that the reduction in his benefits had NOTHING to do with the fact that he killed himself less than two days later.

Again this is why the left are utterly clueless as at no point did he himself lose any payment on benefits, this was pay for his carer where again the view is to help people become self reliant, not that they are dependent on carers.
He had an assessment and clearly must have shown he was able to do more than he did before and as seen is able to do many things for the other 159 hours of the week.
This is why the left want to make people reliant on others and have no motivation and self belief, they want all disabled people to be relaint on others and have no dignity.

You're saying this was a cock and bull story invented by the sister, as it was her that stood to lose money and his benefits did not reduce. I really don’t think you know what you are talking about but I’ll give you a chance to prove that you do. As you seem to have all the answers based on what is printed in the article you should be able to tell me, how much money did the benefits reduce by and by which method were these benefits paid out and to whom were they paid.

I wish these articles would make it clear what type of benefit it is. I don't think it can be carer's allowance, because that's paid on a weekly basis, and I think you have to be a carer for a certain number of hours per week.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Again this is why the left are utterly clueless as at no point did he himself lose any payment on benefits, this was pay for his carer where again the view is to help people become self reliant, not that they are dependent on carers.
He had an assessment and clearly must have shown he was able to do more than he did before and as seen is able to do many things for the other 159 hours of the week.
This is why the left want to make people reliant on others and have no motivation and self belief, they want all disabled people to be relaint on others and have no dignity.

You're saying this was a cock and bull story invented by the sister, as it was her that stood to lose money and his benefits did not reduce. I really  don’t think you know what you are talking about but I’ll give you a chance to prove that you do. As you seem to have all the answers based on what is printed in the article you should be able to tell me, how much money did the benefits reduce by and by which method were these benefits paid out and to whom were they paid.

I am saying it is very suspect to say the least being as how can a person then commit suicide off no money he is losing, only his sister lost any money and gave more care than she was paid for, so why would this push him over the edge, of which you have failed to explain. So I have every right to question claims made, if you do not  like this that is your tough shit and again I do not have to do as you demand, as again you abuse your standing as a moderator.

According to the article, his sister said that they were going to fight the decision, so he must have had some fight left in him at that point. Perhaps the fight just went out of him suddenly.

risingsun wrote:

Nems wrote:In the OP the sentence to take notice of is ...
A spokesman for Bradford Council said: “We are aware of the tragic death of Mr Cotton, who was known to Bradford Adult Services, and our thoughts are with his family.

Really?

Would have been very odd if they hadn't known of him as they would have been providing the care he got.

http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/health_well-being_and_care/adult_care

No, that wording suggests prior mental health issues
Not that I am condoning what happened, you know my views on IDS and the DWP etc

However, sometimes its worth having a look to see whats going on rather than engaging rant mode.

risingsun wrote:

Nems wrote:In the OP the sentence to take notice of is ...
A spokesman for Bradford Council said: “We are aware of the tragic death of Mr Cotton, who was known to Bradford Adult Services, and our thoughts are with his family.

Really?

Would have been very odd if they hadn't known of him as they would have been providing the care he got.

http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/health_well-being_and_care/adult_care

No, that wording suggests prior mental health issues
Not that I am condoning what happened, you know my views on IDS and the DWP etc

However, sometimes its worth having a look to see whats going on rather than engaging rant mode.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Again this is why the left are utterly clueless as at no point did he himself lose any payment on benefits, this was pay for his carer where again the view is to help people become self reliant, not that they are dependent on carers.
He had an assessment and clearly must have shown he was able to do more than he did before and as seen is able to do many things for the other 159 hours of the week.
This is why the left want to make people reliant on others and have no motivation and self belief, they want all disabled people to be relaint on others and have no dignity.

You're saying this was a cock and bull story invented by the sister, as it was her that stood to lose money and his benefits did not reduce. I really  don’t think you know what you are talking about but I’ll give you a chance to prove that you do. As you seem to have all the answers based on what is printed in the article you should be able to tell me, how much money did the benefits reduce by and by which method were these benefits paid out and to whom were they paid.

I am saying it is very suspect to say the least being as how can a person then commit suicide off no money he is losing, only his sister lost any money and gave more care than she was paid for, so why would this push him over the edge, of which you have failed to explain. So I have every right to question claims made, if you do not  like this that is your tough shit and again I do not have to do as you demand, as again you abuse your standing as a moderator.

I'm not trying to explain anything because the information is rather limited but you seem to have it all worked out that he isn't losing any money and the sister is only doing this because she is losing money.

So, how much is she losing and to whom is this benefit paid? Not an unreasonable question is it?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

I am saying it is very suspect to say the least being as how can a person then commit suicide off no money he is losing, only his sister lost any money and gave more care than she was paid for, so why would this push him over the edge, of which you have failed to explain. So I have every right to question claims made, if you do not  like this that is your tough shit and again I do not have to do as you demand, as again you abuse your standing as a moderator.

I'm not trying to explain anything because the information is rather limited but you seem to have it all worked out that he isn't losing any money and the sister is only doing this because she is losing money.

So, how much is she losing and to whom is this benefit paid? Not an unreasonable question is it?

Its called having an opinion on the matter when you and others did exactly the same, so I suggest you look at your own views before you judge others, as that is just plain daft

So does anyone actually know what benefit it is, how much it is, and who gets it?

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

I am saying it is very suspect to say the least being as how can a person then commit suicide off no money he is losing, only his sister lost any money and gave more care than she was paid for, so why would this push him over the edge, of which you have failed to explain. So I have every right to question claims made, if you do not  like this that is your tough shit and again I do not have to do as you demand, as again you abuse your standing as a moderator.

I'm not trying to explain anything because the information is rather limited but you seem to have it all worked out that he isn't losing any money and the sister is only doing this because she is losing money.

So, how much is she losing and to whom is this benefit paid? Not an unreasonable question is it?

Its called having an opinion on the matter when you and others did exactly the same, so I suggest you look at your own views before you judge others, as that is just plain daft

So the only cock and bull story is your cock and bull story that the sister only did this because she was losing money? She was doing what any decent family member would do for a family member but all you do is try and rubbish her with ill-informed nonsense.

Shameful

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Its called having an opinion on the matter when you and others did exactly the same, so I suggest you look at your own views before you judge others, as that is just plain daft

So the only cock and bull story is your cock and bull story that the sister only did this because she was losing money? She was doing what any decent family member would do for a family member but all you do is try and rubbish her with ill-informed nonsense.

Shameful

How is that shameful if it turned out to be true.
Do you have evidence to refute this?
So how is it shaemful and no different to the daft claims you make trying to blame the Goverment?
You see at every pointy you just expose yourself as a hypocritical dick Irn

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Its called having an opinion on the matter when you and others did exactly the same, so I suggest you look at your own views before you judge others, as that is just plain daft

So the only cock and bull story is your cock and bull story that the sister only did this because she was losing money? She was doing what any decent family member would do for a family member but all you do is try and rubbish her with ill-informed nonsense.

Shameful

How is that shameful if it turned out to be true.
Do you have evidence to refute this?
So how is it shaemful and no different to the daft claims you make trying to blame the Goverment?
You see at every pointy you just expose yourself as a hypocritical dick Irn

No Didge, you picked up on this story and tried to use it to paint his sister as only being interested in money. That is shameful even more so because you don't even know how much money would be lost or who it was actually paid to.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

How is that shameful if it turned out to be true.
Do you have evidence to refute this?
So how is it shaemful and no different to the daft claims you make trying to blame the Goverment?
You see at every pointy you just expose yourself as a hypocritical dick Irn

No Didge, you picked up on this story and tried to use it to paint his sister as only being interested in money. That is shameful even more so because you don't even know how much money would be lost or who it was actually paid to.

No Irn I question the babble you lefties were spouting and were using as per usual as a means to make a pathetic political argument, it seems you lefties often use the deaths pf people to attack others and yet when this is turned on its head, you scream like banshees.
So I really could not care as to what you think being as you openly support a terrorist group in Hamas which oies against the wlel being and equality of people. I suggest you look at your own views before you start to judge others.
Again I am not the vile little commie who uses such deaths to make a political argument, only a pathetic commie does.

Speaking generally, how much psychological help do disabled people get? I imagine it was probably very traumatic to lose his legs, and if he had ongoing medical issues, he was probably depressed. I really think this was not a simple case of losing some money and deciding to end it all because of that - it must have been much more complex.

risingsun wrote:

And they are planning more cuts, they don't give a fuck about people dying, they probably clap.

To further prove my point Irn.
How disgusting is the comment above and again making an unfounded accusation?
Where were you to question this?
It just proves you are a hypocritical and two faced

In your own time

Brasidas wrote:

risingsun wrote:

And they are planning more cuts, they don't give a fuck about people dying, they probably clap.

To further prove my point Irn.
How disgusting is the comment above and again making an unfounded accusation?
Where were you to question this?
It just proves you are a hypocritical and two faced

In your own time

Yes, it was a silly comment. I suppose the problem is that the people who are dealing with the financial side of disability benefits can't get emotionally involved. They have to stick to the rules and to budgetary constraints.