Are Sheff Forum members gettin worried?

[jeremyjh1]

The tories want one benefit for all. one benefit which will be equal to JSA and likely to have requirements (like looking for work). This takes no account of the genuine sick and disabled. They will be the ones unable to fulfil the requirements for this new benefit. They will be the ones kicked off and let to stave (or kill themselves). And what do you know-but the tories have reduced the unemployment rates!

 

Anyone with good health won't see a problem, but sickness/disability could strike any of you down. Under tory rules even if you were dying of cancer you'd be fit to work.

 

Where does it say that? Can you provide any evidence for this view or are you just toeing the Labour line? Say it enough times and people will believe it is true.

 

As Brown so often states 'the devil is in the detail' and the detail hasn't been worked out yet.

 

Do you seriously believe any party would advocate, suggest, imply or even demand that a person seriously ill would have any or all benefits removed because they could be deemed able to work?

 

You are deluded and you are a scaremongering liar.

 

I could accuse you of being Gordon, but then he has said, on national tv, he is not in charge of the leaflets his party (his election campaign) are producing.

 

Sounds like another politician - one Richard Nixon who claimed to have had no knowledge of what became Watergate.

 

Still, Gordon is only the PM and the leader of the Labour party - what the heck is he responsible for?

[jeremyjh1]

What chance hasd Cameron got of getting votes from the unemployed now or those who fear they may soon become unemployed?

 

He might need those votes before long.

 

By my reckoning, if they're too damned lazy to get off their backsides to try to find a job, they're not likely to do so to find a polling booth to put an x on a piece of paper for nothing in return (i.e. no new benefit).

 

Now, tell them that voting will get them an extra £50 and ther'll be first in the queue!!!!

[xXMessedUpXx]

Where does it say that? Can you provide any evidence for this view or are you just toeing the Labour line? Say it enough times and people will believe it is true.

 

As Brown so often states 'the devil is in the detail' and the detail hasn't been worked out yet.

 

Do you seriously believe any party would advocate, suggest, imply or even demand that a person seriously ill would have any or all benefits removed because they could be deemed able to work?

 

You are deluded and you are a scaremongering liar.

 

I could accuse you of being Gordon, but then he has said, on national tv, he is not in charge of the leaflets his party (his election campaign) are producing.

 

Sounds like another politician - one Richard Nixon who claimed to have had no knowledge of what became Watergate.

 

Still, Gordon is only the PM and the leader of the Labour party - what the heck is he responsible for?

 

I looked at the manifesto myself.

 

 

As someone who's on ESA i have a right to be worried.

[jeremyjh1]

I looked at the manifesto myself.

 

 

As someone who's on ESA i have a right to be worried.

 

So the manifesto specifically says 'if you're dying of cancer you will be considered able to work and therefore you will lose you entitlement to benefits if you fail to find a job or fail to look for work'?

 

Or words to that effect.

[jeremyjh1]

I looked at the manifesto myself.

 

 

As someone who's on ESA i have a right to be worried.

 

Page 15.

 

"Recipients of

Incapacity Benefit who are genuinely disabled

will continue to receive the financial support to

which they are entitled."

 

If you are 'genuinely disabled' (which I would also take to mean 'dying of cancer').

 

Nothing to be worried about, if your situation is genuine.

[jeremyjh1]

I looked at the manifesto myself.

 

 

As someone who's on ESA i have a right to be worried.

 

Sorry to be pedantic, but why should you be worried if your situation is genuine and proveable?

 

It clearly states in the manifesto 'genuinely disabled' - which, although the detail has not been thrashed out, I would assume that this would also cover long-term, diagnosed illness such as cancer etc.,

 

It really annoys me - actually, if bloody angers me, that people view Tory policy as anti people of lower classes and all for the well off. That they would sonner kick the disadvantaged when they are down.

 

I pay tax and it makes my blood boil when I see people - I know people - who are perfectly able to work, but who claim this benefit or that benefit. I feel like saying 'here's my wallet, help yourself'.

 

I knew a man who couldn't work for some reason or other - heart problem he said, then it was his knee, his kidneys, liver. Anyway, he did part time as a labourer (I kid you not) and claimed Incapacity. And one day he delighted in showing me the patio he had laid himself, some 20 feet by 20 feet. 'Took me a whole week, it did. Nice, innit?'

 

Seeing as I paid for it, I thought it was great. I asked if he wanted to help me lay a patio at my house, but he could because of his back!

 

I did report him and I never saw him again (my choice).

[purdyamos]

Sorry to be pedantic, but why should you be worried if your situation is genuine and proveable?

 

It clearly states in the manifesto 'genuinely disabled' - which, although the detail has not been thrashed out, I would assume that this would also cover long-term, diagnosed illness such as cancer etc.,

 

 

Really?

 

 

People who know what the system's already like would be right to be worried. I'd agree with you in that it isn't only a stereotypically Tory thing, but if you've not been there, don't assume that there's an obvious line between 'genuinely' disabled and those condemned as spongers. The official judgements can be a frightening lottery.

[happyhippy]

Sorry to be pedantic, but why should you be worried if your situation is genuine and proveable?

 

Maybe because it's not that person's opinion which counts, but that of a Civil Servant who has never seen said person on the back of fully qualified medical advice.

 

It clearly states in the manifesto 'genuinely disabled' - which, although the detail has not been thrashed out, I would assume that this would also cover long-term, diagnosed illness such as cancer etc.,

 

Nope. People who are cancer sufferers (such as Hodgkin's Lymphoma) have often been considered fit to work. As someone who is seriously involved in the welfare rights of people who are 'genuinely disabled', I'd love to see a definition of this.

 

It really annoys me - actually, if bloody angers me, that people view Tory policy as anti people of lower classes and all for the well off. That they would sonner kick the disadvantaged when they are down.

 

Show me how it's not the case then.

 

I pay tax and it makes my blood boil when I see people - I know people - who are perfectly able to work, but who claim this benefit or that benefit. I feel like saying 'here's my wallet, help yourself'.

 

No, you see. You don't. You decide what should happen, and because it doesn't fit what you think, it must be wrong. That is all, and nothing else.

 

I knew a man who couldn't work for some reason or other - heart problem he said, then it was his knee, his kidneys, liver. Anyway, he did part time as a labourer (I kid you not) and claimed Incapacity. And one day he delighted in showing me the patio he had laid himself, some 20 feet by 20 feet. 'Took me a whole week, it did. Nice, innit?'

 

Could he do that all day, every day, assuming your anecdote is true? Did he pick and choose when to work? Was he working 9-5, with only his required breaks?

 

Would he even be reliable? Come on then mister. Give us all empirical evidence that your 'bloke' was swinging the lead, as opposed to the views of fully qualified medical staff.

 

Seeing as I paid for it, I thought it was great. I asked if he wanted to help me lay a patio at my house, but he could because of his back!

 

I did report him and I never saw him again (my choice).

 

No. YOU did NOT pay for it.

[jeremyjh1]

Really?

 

 

People who know what the system's already like would be right to be worried. I'd agree with you in that it isn't only a stereotypically Tory thing, but if you've not been there, don't assume that there's an obvious line between 'genuinely' disabled and those condemned as spongers. The official judgements can be a frightening lottery.

 

And who introduced ESA?

 

Please do no confuse a proposed policy in the manifesto of a party NOT in power with the actual policy of a party who have been in power for 13 years.

[jeremyjh1]

HappyHippy - a reply.

 

1. Then perhaps you should decide not to vote for that civil servant rather than castigate the party implementing or proposing the policy, eh?

 

2. Yes, so would I (like to see the definition). If there are people who are genuinely disabled (and, therefore, unable to work at all) being deemed fit to work, then that is a fault of the system or the application of the rules or interpretation of the rules - that should be sorted out and amended or new guidelines need to be issued. Are you saying that, because in certain instances, people (civil servants) sometimes get it wrong that the entire system should be scrapped and it should be open to abuse? The intention is to weedle out the work shy layabouts NOT those who really cannot work. But no system is ever going to be 100 percent fool proof; where there are faults, they should be corrected.

 

3. Show you how this is not the case? I would, but I doubt whether you would take off your glasses and take your fingers out of your ears long enough to hear or see. In fact, having referenced the so called abhorrent policy of allegedly forcing all disabled people to find a job or have their benefits stopped and explaining that it is intended to target the scroungers who know how to abuse the system (well, actually, they 'are' people so I suppose it is an 'anti-people' policy... Oh, I see, you're right. I get it now. As long as a policy doesn't disadvantage any person in any way then it's ok, eh?)

 

4. 'No, you see, you don't' - what, I don't pay tax? Oh, great news. I'm on the phone to HMRC now asking for the last 20 odd years of income tax back. Or are you saying I shouldn't see a person who I know (knew) who was on incapacity for an ever changing set of illnesses or ailments and could not work, but who could do labouring and could lay a patio all on his own and think 'that's not right' and 'surely he is taking the money someone else is perfectly entitled to'. OK, I get it. Say nothing, do nothing, just let them get on with it or I'll be labelled anti-people or something. Luckily, that sponger, er, genuinely disabled person was white or I'd risk being labelled a racist, too.

 

5. Well, I only have his word for it, but he was very proud in telling me that he worked as labourer, on a building site, fetching and carrying bricks etc., heavy lifting three to four days a week. But, he had to be careful he didn't do too much or it would affect his benefits. Oh, he was very proud of how he manipulated the system. Funnily enough, he never worked on the day he was supposed to sign on. As he put it, 'that's me day of rest'!

 

Please, do not try to make excuses for the work shy, benefit fraudsters. If he could work for only a couple of hours a day, then so be it. Be open, be honest and have the benefits being paid adjusted to reflect the additional income. He kept this quiet from the social, 'coz it'd affect me benefits'.

 

In fact, something I neglected to mention, I learned, from his family, that he had been on benefits since he'd left school and that he had never 'officially' worked a day in his life.

 

6. Did I not pay for it? So, my tax and NI contributions do not in any way go towards any form of social care provision? So, please explain why successive governments have always taken money from my earnings and what they actually do with it.

 

Please, enlighten me or I'm off to Number 10 to see Gordon and demand my money back.