The EU debate - Part III

You seem to be confusing the disabled with people claiming disability benefit.
When the government announced they were going to investigate incapacity benefit over 900,000 people chose to come off the benefit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...come-off-sickness-benefit-ahead-of-tests.html

 

Do you get a blue badge because you're clinically obese?

 

From the comment section of that very article:

"Sheila Gilmore wrote an open letter to the DT discrediting these figures before this article was published
http://www.sheilagilmore.co.uk/letter-to-the-sunday-telegraph-on-esa-migration-drop-outs/ "

So it's an utter, utter lie and they knew it was? There's a surprise.

 

FFS i know of disability forums who kept a constant stream of articles portraying disabled people as benefit scroungers. The Daily Mail view all disabled people as scroungers unless they happen to be ex servicemen in which case they are not given enough help .

 

You stupid **** Pete, you've gone and done a Kustard and only read the headline!

You seem to be confusing right wing propaganda aimed at the scared and the stupid with facts.

Thanks for confirming yet again that you're an ignorant, prejudiced failure

 

A recent report commissioned by the organisation Inclusion London and carried out by the Strathclyde Disability Research Group and Glasgow Media Studies group at the University of Glasgow: Bad News for Disabled People: How the Newspapers are reporting Disability, found significant changes in media reporting of disabled people which show a clearly defined increase in stories and views identifying disabled people as ‘undeserving’.

The report identified changes in reporting through comparative content analysis of tabloid newspapers in 2005/6 and 2010/11and through focus groups. The researchers found that incidents of negative language regarding disabled people in print media had more than doubled over the time period, while what they termed ‘sympathetic’ stories had more or less disappeared in the tabloid press. Terms such as ‘burden’, ‘scrounger’, and ‘cheat’ were used repeatedly in 2011with a rapidly decreasing use of articles on disability discrimination. In addition stories outlining the political and economic context were rare. When the focus groups were asked to describe a typical disability story in the newspapers: disability benefit fraud was the top theme.

The media examined were the Mirror, the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, and for balance the Guardian. The researchers also carried out a number of focus groups asking what each group thought the level of disability benefit fraud was, there were variations from rates of 50% to 70% of perceived disability fraud from focus groups.

The reality in terms of incapacity benefit it is just 0.03% according to the ONS the report states. The Department of Work and Pensions own figures on Disability Living Allowance are 0.05% both stats also include administrative errors within their figures. The media strategy appears to be working when focus groups state perceived incidents of fraud of up to 70% which is more in line with Daily Mail and Daily Express headlines, than any statistical realities.

 

couple of points
1. Someone claiming a disability benefit is a disabled person in the view of the relevant authorities.
2.The 900000 figure was clearly bollocks if for no other reason WCA tests were brought in under Blair. There is also a constant churn of ESA claimants due to the nature of the benefit.

not sure why i am bothering with this as from what i have seen on this thread no-one will ever change your views however overwhelming the evidence is.

 

Pete's been absolutely rinsed here.

What a truly sad, bitter, bigoted, deluded, fat failure he is.

He's a genuinely odious Tory twat

 

The really sad points at the moment are the government pressing ahead with the £21pw ESA cut and those let down by the private companies brought in to do the tests.

Very little in the papers of the effects of these cuts, the effect of switching to universal credit, the benefits cap and the imposition of the bedroom tax when a disabled person needs an extra room for essential equipment.

 

Have you read what it says? They did apply and then withdrew their claim before having a face to face interview. Now I can accept that some people may get better before their face to face interview but 900,000 is still a fact and not a lie. If you still think it is a lie then please provide proof.

 

Yes but they're all ****.

 

You dont think that is being irrational?

 

the bedroom tax being applicable to all disabled people unless need a live in carer is ridiculous when you see how much space is taken up with disability equipment in some houses/flats.
Benefits cap does ignore DLA and ESA (if in support group)

 

1 That is a ridiculous definition
2 The 900,000 is a fact. You might not like it but that is irrelevant.
Don't bother then.

 

no why ?

 

It's a lie. They're trying to portray it as 900,000 people dropping their claim in response to the new process.
That's not true, is it?

900,000 choose to come off sickness benefit rather than undergo a tough medical test.
That's a blatant lie.

 

You did ask for a full answer, so here's my two pennerth, it'll look back to front, but bear with me because some of you won't like the middle bits, and no doubt some will see things that aren't there.

One thing I'll say from the start is that in my opinion and experience, by far and above the group that suffers the most discrimination are the ones that get the least recognition, and cover the whole gamut of isms, the disabled. That I believe to be damning on our society and part of a different set of issues to the ones I'll raise, but that certainly need addressing.

We want a world of true equal opportunity, effectively a meritocracy, where if you can, you can do irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. (< this bit will get missed even though it's the most important part, and the key to the rest).

The current ways of thinking don't really enable that, as we've created a victim based culture.

The first thing we need is a line drawing. History ends and the future starts here, with a clean slate for all.

We can't forget the past, nor should we, but it is the past and we shouldn't live in, but learn from it.

Each area has culture, even though they're vague, varied and not easy to define. They evolve as people come and go, and other influences change habits and preferences, but it should be by consent, not legislation and incoming cultures should respect the indigenous, and the indigenous should tolerate the incomers, unless it conflicts materially, in which case there's an opportunity for discussion. The aim should be for multi-cultures, not the series of mono-cultures that we seem to have developed and they should be grounded in the key concepts of the host nation. In Britain, I'd say that's tolerance, charity, freedom, equality and a sense of fair play and justice.

Currently, some are continually told they're victims and deserving, and others told they should feel guilty because of historic events carried out by people long dead. That's the past and the other side of the line. Likewise with gender, there are good laws in place to protect against discrimination, but they need to be used for equal opportunity.

We're not equal. That's nature, some are stronger, some are brighter. There tends to be biological reasons and sport is a visible example. The national womens football team won't beat the mens football team, and the start line at the Olympic 100 metre sprint looks different to the swimming events.
The discrimination laws can be used if someone is victimised, and we should look to create equality of opportunity because just looking to balance numbers with roles in society is as daft as expecting Mr Bean to win the world heavyweight boxing title. It leaves some people that earn and deserve their place look like tokens, elevated to balance some book rather than getting the respect they deserve.

I love banter, it's a part of most areas of life and the banter in most workplaces and offices wouldn't get on mainstream tv, but it's tempered to those involved. There has to be limits as it's a fine, yet wobbly line between banter and abuse, but trying to claim that you can go further with some types of people than others is wrong. It's discriminatory, especially if it's okay for some other sections of society to do it.

If it's wrong to be jokey about some cultures, it's wrong to be abusive about other physical features. After all, ginger people can make a case for racial abuse and cultural domination by invaders too.

What we have ended up doing is silencing the words, but not tackling the thinking so it just gets reinforced. That misses the opportunity to challenge bigotry by getting people to talk openly about how they feel. We have laws to protect us from abuse and hatred, extra ones for race etc simply reinforce the victim culture that is divisive, as it makes some feel that the playing field slopes. You only have to look at the abuse by some of posters on here to see the hypocrisy. It also creates an opportunity for those that just feel the need to be outrageous because being funny or making a point is beyond them.

What the current system does by pushing race an other isms onto so many agendas is create division and animosity, and it's the perception of the guilt trip and victim culture as well as the system that has become an industry to keep us divided that generated the recorded increase. It's similar feelings that manifest in the US election and brexit. It's a combination of frustration and repression as well as an industry that needs it to stay on the agenda. A focus on what we share and what unites is more productive.

A clear set of rules that apply to all can help build civic and national pride, and help us all progress together and those remaining with irrational hatreds will be marginalised for what they are, not for what others claim them to be.

Discrimination and mindless abuse is wrong, in whatever form it takes and the rules should apply equally to all.

 

Because the Daily Mail doesn't view all disabled people - excluding ex services - as benefit scroungers.
If you can support that statement with a link then please do so.

 

I'm sure some came off sickness benefit for valid reasons but when you read the article further there is plenty of evidence of a lot of people trying to play the system.

 

Your obesity may make you a drain on the taxpayers' money but at least it's ensured that you've not been able to reproduce.