The EU debate - Part III

I was on the wrong end of it in Trinidad, many years ago!

Not a nice experience! You think, 'you don't know anything about me apart from my skin is a different colour to yours, why all this abuse?'

 

I agree. If somebody says that I am saying I am deciding whether somebody is disabled just because I dont think the person who is claiming to be disabled should be the sole judge then he certainly is incapable of talking sensibly. If you can't talk sensibly it is better not to talk at all. You would be better off looking for something you are capable of doing.

 

I've mentioned this before...when I was at school, a guy in my year clocked the fact that my old man looked a bit "different" as he is originally from North Africa (scary Arab but not a Muslim before Kustard contacts the Home Office!). He started referring to me as "Paki". Even back then I thought he was a simpleton **** but I won't pretend that as a 10 year old kid it didn't sting a bit. His old man went bankrupt a couple of years later

 

You're a colossally sad colossal **** Pete. Your missus and her daughter will deserve every penny when you croak.

 

Solid_Air 2: “Someone claiming a disability benefit is a disabled person in the view of the relevant authorities.”
PS: “That is a ridiculous definition”
Solid_Air 2: “oh i see you decide who is disabled do you rather than the medical profession ,DWP and a Tory govt”
PS: “You see nothing. Why do you keep coming out with ridiculous hysterical statements?”
Solid_Air 2: “i see that there is no point in conversing with you.”
He thinks that a person who claims a disability benefit should decide if they are disabled. When I disagree he says that I am deciding who is disabled!
There seems to be too many people who are incapable of having a rational discussion.

 

Add him to your ignore list, as he patently doesn't swallow the right wing propaganda you lap up like a stray dog eating a roadside pizza.

You ignorant, intolerant, pompous, heartless, self obsessed, greedy ****

 

And down the rabbit hole it goes. Oh well.

 

You could start a separate thread about your comically stupid and ill informed views on ginger folk.

 

There's still posts that you haven't replied to, don't let sideshow Pete derail your teachings

 

Dullible and his tiny balls!

 

He didn't, it was others diverting things.

 

Yep, you! As usual!...

 

"They"

 

You can still ignore the interim posts and reply, same as you did this evening

Pete is merely showing himself (yet again) to be a complete imbecile.

 

I think this whole thing has gone at cross purposes.

The other guy. SA, was disputing the figures of withdrawn benefit claims reported by a The Torygraph. You've leapt on that to decide that they're all not really disabled.

Whilst I agree that the social services cannot just take at their word every person who comes in claiming disability benefit - unless they've got a limb missing or something, to suggest that some 900,000 people were all false claimants, is ludicrous.

Many have enough to deal with and just cannot bear the indignities liable to be heaped upon them by these proposals.

 

They article was about claiming extra benefit because a person had become sick. Ie the natural churn of people getting ill/injured and recovering. The figures are false because those on incapacity (ie long term ill/ disabled) had not even transitioned to ESA at the time of the article as this was done gradually rather than the big bang approach to new claimants who would previously received sickness benefit for up to 26 weeks.

It's more complicated than this so hopefully someone will fill in the blanks but ESA isn't a single award, it has multiple components/ levels depending on whether you are assessment phase/ main phase / transitioned from IB, as well as a contributions based award if you've paid NI.

What I'm trying to say is Pete is an ignorant ****er

 

I know very little about this subject. But it was plainly obvious that these figures were not right and had been cynically manipulated to justify the claims made in the article.

 

what he said was "You seem to be confusing the disabled with people claiming disability benefit."
so i pointed out that the on behalf of HMG the DWP based on medical advice make that decision that he implies he can do better on judging.
Oh and before he brings up acne etc there are 2 explanations for that
1 Doctors often just repeat what was on the first med cert / fit note though the patients condition may have altered drastically
2 The DWP "legacy" system only accepts a limited medical definition.

 

Bits in bold don't correlate. You've quoted a dialogue and simultaneously demonstrated incapable of following it

@Solid_Air 2 would have to find someone rational to have a rational discussion. It's patently obvious you're not it. I do wonder whether you are being deliberately obtuse or whether you really do have a low IQ? Serious question btw