Disabled try to storm parliament.

[Bob Arctor]

Here's a link to a long list of people, mainly disabled, now dead, mainly through suicide, as a result of their treatment at the hands of our benefit systems.

 

http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/

 

So no, we don't drive them out of the village, we drive them out of life, in their thousands- the vulnerable, ill weak and old, treated with such disrespect that they end their lives rather than endure it. And it's getting worse and worse, and will continue to do so, while, bizzarely, a huge portion of mainstream society believes we have an adequate set caring support systems in place.

 

Most people don't know how bad things are because they don't know anyone who is on the sharp end. It's a very cynical, manipulative and successful strategy. One can imagine the calculations behind cutting the a Independent Living Fund; about 45 million voters, about 11000 ILF recipients, chances of a voter knowing someone affected - very small indeed. Easy target.

[Happ Hazzard]

Can someone explain the concept of an independent living fund? If people are dependent on government money, then they are by definition, not independent.

 

I think the problem is the welfare state was allowed to expand FAR beyond its original purpose as a temporary safety net. Too many people were allowed to become totally dependent on the state and now it's time to wean people off, a lot of people are finding it very difficult.

[Mister M]

Can someone explain the concept of an independent living fund? If people are dependent on government money, then they are by definition, not independent.

 

I think the problem is the welfare state was allowed to expand FAR beyond its original purpose as a temporary safety net. Too many people were allowed to become totally dependent on the state and now it's time to wean people off, a lot of people are finding it very difficult.

 

 

Yes the ILF is for the most severely disabled so they don't have to go into residential care. It began in 1988.

The largest group of recipients - about a third - have severe learning disabilities, and the second largest group have cerebral palsy. The money helps them have some independence and dignity.

The recipients of ILF are often said to be some of the most severely disabled people in the UK.

 

When the welfare state was created, many such people would have been incarcerated, if they survived at all.

 

Given the many medical conditions of those who rely on the ILF are permanent, but the welfare state is supposed to be temporary- in your view, what should these people do?

Edited June 30, 2015 by Mister M

[Bob Arctor]

Can someone explain the concept of an independent living fund? If people are dependent on government money, then they are by definition, not independent.

 

I think the problem is the welfare state was allowed to expand FAR beyond its original purpose as a temporary safety net. Too many people were allowed to become totally dependent on the state and now it's time to wean people off, a lot of people are finding it very difficult.

 

I explained it in post #78, you might want to read that post. It is for people who are severely disabled, such as people who are deafblind, or whose arms or legs or both don't work, who have severe brain injuries or severe learning disabilities. You're suggesting that if these people didn't have money to provide practical support in their daily lives that they would somehow be able to grow some new legs or make their eyes see? How would 'weaning someone off' the support they need make them be able to do things on their own when they can't physically get out of bed without someone to help them do it?

 

The 'Independent' bit of the ILF is about helping people to lead a reasonably normal life; previously a lot of disabled people were kept in institutions - in residential homes, cut off from everyday life - not just older people but young people as well. It sounds ludicrous now, but this was the case well into the 1980s. While recipients of ILF funding might need support from others to do a lot of things, most are able to decide what it is they want to do with their lives; what time to get up, what time to go to bed, what to eat, where to go and what to do with their time. All the things that you or I take for granted. Being able to choose these things makes a person independent, whether or not they need physical assistance to do them. Take that support away and those people may as well be kept in a warehouse.

 

There is no moral case for removing this support and all the arguments for doing so that I've seen in this thread have no relevance to the ILF and the people expressing them have no idea what the ILF is or does. Now that you know what it is I ask that you question what the justification for removing it could possibly be.

[Halibut]

Yes the ILF is for the most severely disabled so they don't have to go into residential care. It began in 1988.

The largest group of recipients - about a third - have severe learning disabilities, and the second largest group have cerebral palsy. The money helps them have some independence and dignity.

The recipients of ILF are often said to be some of the most severely disabled people in the UK.

 

When the welfare state was created, many such people would have been incarcerated, if they survived at all.

 

Given the many medical conditions of those who rely on the ILF are permanent, but the welfare state is supposed to be temporary- in your view, what should these people do?

 

I explained it in post #78, you might want to read that post. It is for people who are severely disabled, such as people who are deafblind, or whose arms or legs or both don't work, who have severe brain injuries or severe learning disabilities. You're suggesting that if these people didn't have money to provide practical support in their daily lives that they would somehow be able to grow some new legs or make their eyes see? How would 'weaning someone off' the support they need make them be able to do things on their own when they can't physically get out of bed without someone to help them do it?

 

The 'Independent' bit of the ILF is about helping people to lead a reasonably normal life; previously a lot of disabled people were kept in institutions - in residential homes, cut off from everyday life - not just older people but young people as well. It sounds ludicrous now, but this was the case well into the 1980s. While recipients of ILF funding might need support from others to do a lot of things, most are able to decide what it is they want to do with their lives; what time to get up, what time to go to bed, what to eat, where to go and what to do with their time. All the things that you or I take for granted. Being able to choose these things makes a person independent, whether or not they need physical assistance to do them. Take that support away and those people may as well be kept in a warehouse.

 

There is no moral case for removing this support and all the arguments for doing so that I've seen in this thread have no relevance to the ILF and the people expressing them have no idea what the ILF is or does. Now that you know what it is I ask that you question what the justification for removing it could possibly be.

 

Two eloquent and well argued posts. I look forward to responses from HH and the other loathers of the poor, sick and disabled.

[crookedspire]

Has a disabled person myself I find it truly shocking how people like myself are slammed and treated. I became disabled though a work accident I went to work that day to earn my crust and pay my own way in life not end up in my position I'm in now. What changes are been put forward now make me think that life is not worth living anymore its very clear people like myself are hated. I was a soldier for ten years I served in Northern Ireland seen many things ,if I knew then what I know now I should have thrown my rifle down and walked away. I believe in fairness and justice this government has clearly shown its true colours but hey as long as we save money who cares.