1 in 4 living off benefits - Page 7

churchfcrules · 03-09-2007, 23:51

well thanks for answering me, i do agree discrimination was a lot worse, but do you feel that it HAS got that much better?

also thanks for discussing this with me, as some have reacted as though i had suggested eugenics

shillelagh · 03-09-2007, 23:54

No. People with disabilities still get discriminated against. Not as open as it was but still do.

BERNADETTE · 04-09-2007, 00:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

well thanks for answering me, i do agree discrimination was a lot worse, but do you feel that it HAS got that much better?

also thanks for discussing this with me, as some have reacted as though i had suggested eugenics

Sorry thread wander, well I am pretty well up on English but must admit you got me with that one. You said it that is how it came across!!

(wander over)

churchfcrules · 04-09-2007, 00:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

Sorry thread wander, well I am pretty well up on English but must admit you got me with that one. You said it that is how it came across!!

(wander over)

you got me totally lost now
whats all of this wandering?

BERNADETTE · 04-09-2007, 00:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

you got me totally lost now
whats all of this wandering?

I was the one wandering by going off the subject!!

churchfcrules · 04-09-2007, 00:19

oh i get it now, well off to bed, some of us have to get up for work (tongue firmly buried in cheek) lol

BERNADETTE · 04-09-2007, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

oh i get it now, well off to bed, some of us have to get up for work (tongue firmly buried in cheek) lol

It better be!!

MargaretR · 04-09-2007, 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

oh i get it now, well off to bed, some of us have to get up for work (tongue firmly buried in cheek) lol

I was asleep from 8pm til 10pm - need to lie down every 3 or 4 hours for neck pain relief and usualy nod off -thats why I am on here at 1.30am

BERNADETTE · 04-09-2007, 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I was asleep from 8pm til 10pm - need to lie down every 3 or 4 hours for neck pain relief and usualy nod off -thats why I am on here at 1.30am

It's my me time at the moment, a bit of relaxation!!

Lampman · 04-09-2007, 07:16

Well we've certainly aired our views on that one,nice to see logical discussion as opposed to the rant we sometimes get.

WillowTheWhisp · 04-09-2007, 07:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

so whats wrong with part time?

Part time work will still be for a set number of hours at a set time - for instance, every afternoon from 1pm to 5pm. But someone may not be capable of sustained work for a period of 4 hours day after day every day.

I have a friend who has such chronic pain that some days it's a sheer effort to dress herself and takes her over an hour. On those days she wouldn't be capable of even getting to work let alone working for a continued period. Some days she has less pain (is never pain free) and more able to move and on those days she does what housework she can but then she may be incapable of doing any at all the following day. She just has to take each day as it comes.

There is no employer out there who can afford to take on someone who can only come in on a totally irregular basis and do as much as they can but only when they are actually capable of doing it.

The medical assessments theoretically should sort out those who can and can't work but some people are very good at acting for the examiner. Others are too honest for their own good. I used to work with a girl whose cousin had rheumatoid arthritis and had been claiming DLA. She was required to go for an assessment but physically couldn't get there so someone visited her at home. Because on the day they called she was able to get to the front door and let them in she lost her benefit!

The comment someone made about having worked all their life and paid into the system so should be entitled to claim something when needed is a valid one. I think we all know that the money we pay in isn't the money we get out. This is why it annoys me when people who have no children complain about their taxes going to fund education. Those children they complain about supporting will one day be paying the taxes which will fund something else. (Possibly the complainant's old-age pension if such things still exist by then.) However, there are many people who contribute to the NI all their lives and die before ever having claimed anything such as my late father who despite being disabled continued to work and dropped dead from a heart attack at the age of 63.

Lampman · 04-09-2007, 14:47

Yes Willow that reminds me of my own father,worked all his life never off ill(until terminal cancer) then died 2 days after his 65th. birthday.They say you can't take it with you and pensions are promised to no one.
There are many genuine benefit cases,but alas there are many who are milking the system and promenade round Accrington on a daily basis.
They are the untouchables in both senses of the word.

churchfcrules · 04-09-2007, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

There is no employer out there who can afford to take on someone who can only come in on a totally irregular basis and do as much as they can but only when they are actually capable of doing it.

i agree, but what is wrong with a government funded scheme that covers volantary work, i am sure that we could all think of worthwhile causes that are currently under/not even funded, that people with skills and a disabillity could both benefit and give the community the benefit of, it would not only give those people the chance to prove to society that they have no need to be discriminated against, and it wasnt just disabled, i remember the used to have a similar scheme for the unemployed back in the eighties CPU if i remember correctly, wether my views are oover the top, i just feel as a community we would benefit from people earning their benefits (if capable) oppose to a government that is quite happy to carry on sending out the giros, and fixing the unemployment figures.

i also understand the arguement that this could actually take full time jobs away from people, but as i say if it was centered around new or existing non paid community work, i dont see this a major problem

garinda · 04-09-2007, 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by churchfcrules

i also understand the arguement that this could actually take full time jobs away from people

...and that would be a good thing?

Wouldn't it result in even more people being without 'real' jobs, and hence claiming benefit?

State run industries, that aren't run for profit, but to just employ people for the sake of it, does sound rather like the workhouses of old, or British Leyland in the seventies.

churchfcrules · 04-09-2007, 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

...and that would be a good thing?

Wouldn't it result in even more people being without 'real' jobs, and hence claiming benefit?

State run industries, that aren't run for profit, but to just employ people for the sake of it, does sound rather like the workhouses of old, or British Leyland in the seventies.

awfully selective in my quote there dont you think? what happened to the rest of the sentance? it sort of pre-emtied what you just said!