Channel 4 despatches

[ccit]

You are incorrect - what she said was that she spent her DLA on riding lessons, and did not refer to using the money for care provision for herself. TBH it doesn't matter either way, but you seem to be making an issue of this which is not necessary IMHO.

[Anna B]

You did seem to imply that it was wrong, and with all the 'scrounger' bashers on here, I thought that's what you were getting at.

 

I apologise sincerely if I was wrong.

[Allen]

DLA isn't just about care.

There are two components to it. The care part, and for help in getting around.

Getting around means being able to "get out" and live as near a normal life as an able bodied person.

Are you sure you watched the programme?

It was clearly explained.

[*_ash_*]

DLA isn't just about care.

There are two components to it. The care part, and for help in getting around.

Getting around means being able to "get out" and live as near a normal life as an able bodied person.

Are you sure you watched the programme?

It was clearly explained.

 

It's clearly explained if you listen carefully and don't just watch it blindly, which clearly most people do... but, this is Dispatches we're talking about, who are pretty much the tabloid version of Panorama (although even they aren't much better lately). Dispatches programmes are as balanced as a one-sided see-saw. They could make children's tea-party look like a moral-panic.

 

I do have it on auto-record though, so I must want to watch it for some reason.

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 01:42 ----------

 

You are incorrect - what she said was that she spent her DLA on riding lessons, and did not refer to using the money for care provision for herself. TBH it doesn't matter either way, but you seem to be making an issue of this which is not necessary IMHO.

 

She did say that she spent her DLA on riding lessons, however, I think it was turn of phrase to keep a more complex and lengthy answer short and to the point - it's generally the way people speak. It doesn't literally mean she spends the money she gets in DLA on riding (implying that riding is a luxury and shouldn't be paid for by the tax-payer).

 

The full sentence would be, that if she didn't have the DLA which helps with her mobility costs (that being one of one of the two criteria, the other being care cost), then she wouldn't be able to afford the general mobility costs (e.g. if she owns a car) that transports her to the riding centre, or anywhere else for that matter. Either way, care and mobility can be separate or combined with the criteria of DLA, and again either way, it doesn't matter that she didn't refer to the money being for care provision.

 

 

You did seem to imply that it was wrong, and with all the 'scrounger' bashers on here, I thought that's what you were getting at.

 

I apologise sincerely if I was wrong.

 

'Scrounger bashers' in here generally mean people who don't work and claim benefits to live on. Whether you inferred an implied 'scrounger basher' or not, or whether he/she was or wasn't meaning it that way, it still wouldn't make any difference, as DLA is paid regardless of working or not working.

[Anna B]

It's clearly explained if you listen carefully and don't just watch it blindly, which clearly most people do... but, this is Dispatches we're talking about, who are pretty much the tabloid version of Panorama (although even they aren't much better lately). Dispatches programmes are as balanced as a one-sided see-saw. They could make children's tea-party look like a moral-panic.

 

I do have it on auto-record though, so I must want to watch it for some reason.

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 01:42 ----------

 

 

She did say that she spent her DLA on riding lessons, however, I think it was turn of phrase to keep a more complex and lengthy answer short and to the point - it's generally the way people speak. It doesn't literally mean she spends the money she gets in DLA on riding (implying that riding is a luxury and shouldn't be paid for by the tax-payer).

 

The full sentence would be, that if she didn't have the DLA which helps with her mobility costs (that being one of one of the two criteria, the other being care cost), then she wouldn't be able to afford the general mobility costs (e.g. if she owns a car) that transports her to the riding centre, or anywhere else for that matter. Either way, care and mobility can be separate or combined with the criteria of DLA, and again either way, it doesn't matter that she didn't refer to the money being for care provision.

 

 

 

 

'Scrounger bashers' in here generally mean people who don't work and claim benefits to live on. Whether you inferred an implied 'scrounger basher' or not, or whether he/she was or wasn't meaning it that way, it still wouldn't make any difference, as DLA is paid regardless of working or not working.

 

 

 

 

Ahhh...but do they deserve it? Scrounger bashing on here can be in relation to anyone on benefits as you know.