No RS i do really approve of targetting money where its most needed. That is why you will find i consistently speak out against the public and voluntary sector and the regeneration game. The amount of money these people go through is far more of an issue for me.redsquirrel said:
Challenge disability benefit reforms: national conference 15/10/05 in Sheffield
- Thread starter AnnO'Neemus
- Start date
But look at who most people on U75 seem to hate most David Blunkett..... but who is most in touch with the view of the majority of people? David Blunkett or a bunch of MC tossers who have hardly ever done anything positive for anyone but themselves.ViolentPanda said:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
If you can't remember then just do a search and refresh your memory.tbaldwin said:
I don't think you're "Pauline", I think you're better-informed than that particular character, and therefore your attitude is even more despicable.
That's not what your language and your previous statements reflect. You spew out the crap and then tone it down when people call you on it, you go from "they're nearly all scroungers" to "well I suppose some of them are legit, but there are still loads of pisstakers".
If you don't want to be pulled then write what you mean, not what sounds populist enough for you.
And I'd rather be a cunt any day than an arse-licker of the establishment like you.
Another incorrect sweeping judgement. I don't character-assassinate anyone I think "might be slightly symathetic to NL", I was a member of the Labour party for some (including some of Blair's) years, and I still have friends, colleagues and acquaintances in the party.
What I don't like are the one-dimensional hacks who believe there is no alternative to such policies. People like you.
Believe me, if I character-assassinated you, you'd know about it.
Thing is, you don't warrant it.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Er fine, but that's the opposite of what I said which was about which groups to come down hard on.tbaldwin said:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Yep, same here.tobyjug said:
Aside from that, having had TWO medical discharges from employment (one from the army, one from the Civil Service) a mate in the employment agency game told me I'd be about as likely to find an employer (even if my doctor would allow it, which he won't) as I'd be likely to get a blowjob off the Pope.
I WANT to work, but guess what? If you have multiple ongoing (and worsening) disabilities and illnesses like me and informally have a word with the DWP they tell you that you fall outside their remit, that your case is "too complex". They're very apologetic, but they can't do anything for you.
That's why I keep saying that work would have to be fitted to peoples needs, not people fitted to the needs of work,
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
How is he (and New Labour in general) more "in touch"? You keep on saying this but it simply isn't true. This government had the lowest number of people voting for it since the start of the modern system. Many of it's policies are opposed by the general public (as can be seen by looking at opinion polls).tbaldwin said:
For example, lets take one of your favourite topics - immigration. Most people in this country want tighter immigration controls yet this government (and Blunkett himself who was home minister let's not forget) hasn't followed the peoples will on that have they(he)?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Blunkett is hopelessly out of touch. he's been in national politics for over half his life. To claim that he's in touch is absurd.tbaldwin said:
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
tbaldwin said:
, I'm sorry I have absolutely no clue what you're blathering on about. This doesn't seem to have connection to my arguement that the people to target for fraud are the professional classes and their businesses.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Oooh, plastic hardman alert!tbaldwin said:
Getting worried your shittyness might be revealed, balders?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
redsquirrel said:
Difficult to decipher, isn't it?
He is actually saying much the same, but he's painted himself into a corner by disagreeing with me when I made the same point with regard to the "consultants" and "advisers" who leach money away from the various ministries.
ViolentPanda said:
Why doesnt it suprise me that you were in the LP for years..... So under Kinnock and John Smith it was OK to be in the LP was it? Great Socialists they were like that lovely Jim Callaghan....
I think there are alternatives to the policies that LP have. Its just i dont see much to agree with from people like yourself. I would like to see very different policies on Crime Migration and Education. Not just the watered down Liberal wank people like you come out with but smashing the CJS and the Educational establishment.
Reparations to developing countries and extending democracy to areas like voting for judges....
ViolentPanda said:
No i dont disagree with you that money is wasted on consultants. Just that i think you as usual have gone for a very easy option.
I am against a lot of the PFi stuff but would have a go at anyone who said things like most of the extra govt spending has gone on this because its bollocks..
tobyjug said:
Well your first suggestion makes me think you could probably get work as a consultant of some sort.
This is 2005 there is loads of flexible working that people like you could do. But i suppose in someways its still not what you know but who you know.
I am not arguing to tkae peoples IB or DLA away if they need it but a more flexible benefits system and against the hot air balloons who are just coming out with fashionable views that they really have not thought through.
tbaldwin said:
I am not about to go into my entire two telephone directories thick medical files on an internet forum. However given from November to the Middle of March I can rarely get out of the house, I rarely go out without a minder, or without telling at least one responsible person where I am going. I have not been able to write manually for many years due to loss of the technical use of my hands. I have a very short fuse, and I do not suffer fools gladly.
ectcetera, work is not something I am capable of.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
S'funny innit, if a working class person has a choice between benefits (which aren't enough to live on) or a low paid job (which isn't enough to live on), so decides to combine the two so they can survive, pay bills, eat, etc. that's fraud.Attica said:
But when a middle class person is employed by an employer who doesn't pay them enough to live on, and they take money from the state to help them get by, that's perfectly above board and called tax credits.
tbaldwin, you keep talking about "helping people back into work who want it" yet, you are arguing for reforms which will include forcing people on IB to go into "work focussed interviews" under threat of having their IB cut, if the opinion of a medical professional is that a person is incapable of work (as must be the case with IB), then surely it is rediculous to then force that person to look for work?
"Helping people back into work" my arse
"Helping people back into work" my arse
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Lies? So far as I can tell, people are speaking from experience. Just because how the system actually works contradicts its theoretical aims and objectives doesn't make the person who experiences such shambolic inefficiency and counterproductive measures a liar.tbaldwin said:
I agree that the system discourages people from going back to work. But probably not in the same way you think it does. In my experience, the system discourages people from going back to work because everything is dressed up in terms of glossy brochures and targets and uniformity. But everyone has individual needs. For example, the doubly incontinent person's needs are completely different to mine.tbaldwin said:
I agree *and disagree* with you here.tbaldwin said:
When you say that people on IB can work, it's not as simple as that. Making such a blanket statement has an underlying (and offensive) implication that people are just slacking and sponging off the system.
It may be that a person on IB *genuinely* can no longer do the type of work they've previously done. For example, people with back injuries, can no longer do work involving lifting, or maybe even sitting still/desk bound jobs for long periods. Some people with medical conditions may not be able to work such long hours, it may be too exhausting to work a full time job for someone with ME, someone with emphysema, cancer patients, etc, etc, etc.
The problem lies with the system's inflexibility. Because some people perhaps *can* work, it's just that the system is inherently unable to assist people into the kind of the jobs that they *can* do. The system is about putting people into jobs *now*. The system isn't about retraining people to do jobs that they *may* be able to do. That would cost money. And the government doesn't want to spend money in order to be able to save it. It does not have the foresight, is not willing to make the investment.
So the upshot is that there are lots of people on IB who are *genuinely* unable to do the kind of work they are experienced in/qualified to do. They *cannot* work in those jobs.
But they are not being funded to train to do jobs that they will be able to do, bearing in mind their *individual* needs relating to their disabilities.
And yes, I do think it's very New Labour, that's it's all about glossy brochures and policies. "We have policies to get people back into work," which basically amount to telling people, "go back to work" (I guess most people really want to, because living on benefits is crap), without providing them with the advice, (re)training *and additional financial support* to enable them to do so.
But I guess you're going to call me a liar and accuse me of hysteria, yet I'm speaking from personal experience.
In my local area, a couple of years ago, there was *one* DEA who worked between two offices (large offices in a major city with high IB claimant levels), so effectively each office had only a part time DEA. He was off on long term sick leave for about nine months. There was no cover in his absence. The regular staff just tried to muddle through. But disability benefits are so different to regular benefits and such a specialised area that they don't know what they're talking about. Far from being a benefit scrounger who sponges off the system, personally, I found I had been *underpaid* approximately £2,000 [yes, that's two thousand pounds] in benefits over the course of a year, because they hadn't paid me all the benefits I was legally entitled to.tbaldwin said:
I agree. So why doesn't the government do something constructive about the problem instead of producing gazillions of glossy brochures, spending millions refurbishing and rebranding job centres to job centre *plus* (don't forget the "plus", although that's probably just an acknowledgement of 'plus' bucketloads of patronising and incompetence).tbaldwin said:
I don't jump to any conclusions. I'd argue that you have very limited understanding of the issues.tbaldwin said:
Like you, maybe a few years ago, perhaps I would have been sceptical, but having had an accident and acquired a disability, I've been shocked and appalled by my experiences. You really wouldn't believe it unless you've been here and done it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
...and yet again the man of the people jumps to giant-sized conclusions. How very very surprising.tbaldwin said:
Quit the generalities, talk specifics.
Oh, and keep on showing your ignorance by calling me a liberal, it amuses me no end.
Oh great, elected judges, so we can have cronies judging us rather than the current unelected bunch.
That ought to make about a thimbleful of difference. If that's your idea of "smashing the criminal justice system" you need to get out more. All you're doing is shifting from one bunch of cunts to another and saddling the taxpayer with the cost of elections. If you want to "smash" the system you need something different from the current one, not just the same old same old with new faces.
tobyjug said:
I was a member of the labour party when Blair was elected in 1997, and lost all illusions in that party when Blair began attacking single parents and my local MP, a former Bennite in a constituency with a considerable proportion of single parents and welfare claiments turned around and told her local GC that she wouldnt oppose such attacks because she "wasnt an oppositionist". The fact is that Blair got these people into power when many of them had lost all hope of being there, and he knows that most of them would prostitute their grannies to stay there.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tollbar said:
The problem is that the likes of tbaldwin expect us to accept this sort of repulsive turncoatery as "the price of power", but how the shit can you trust people who you've watched sell their arses to the highest bidder?
At least with the tories they didn't disguise their lust for wealth and power, this shower dress it up with fine words, but they still serve those on benefits up with a shit sandwich to eat.
AnnO'Neemus said:
Saying many people on IB can work was to counter what people were saying on here. It was not intended to imply everyone on IB is a scrounger,far from it.
As for my limited understanding i would say i have been both a claimant of IB and have over 10 years experience of working with people on IB. So it really is not that limited.
ViolentPanda That ought to make about a thimbleful of difference. If that's your idea of "smashing the criminal justice system" you need to get out more. All you're doing is shifting from one bunch of cunts to another [B said:
So you think judges should be selected like now by an Old Boy Network rather than the general population and then you try and make some silly point about cronyism......
Scum like you have always worried about the cost of elections perhaps you would like to go back to the days when it was all sorted out at Gentlemens clubs or perhaps your a bit more Liberal than that and would like to go back to the Days of Jim Callaghan and Neil Kinnock etc when you were happy to support the Labour Party....
Can someone reply to this nonsense on indymedia uk, i'm afraid i am not up to it today.
btw, is ted, baldwin, sounds very familar
'The party is over
12.10.2005 01:22
The government has most probably given up on those already on Incapacity Benefit, except for the most obvious cases of abuse. The message being sent out is that from now on new claimants will actually have to be incapable of work to get Incapacity Benefit, not just fed up with work at the local council or unable to find a job with a good wage after all the mines or factories in the area have shut. It's going to be a lot harder to persuade a government doctor that you've got ME, 'stress' or other some other dodgy illness, instead of just going to a GP who signs you off because he's got the nod from the government to help massage the unemployment figures. About time too. The current system is a joke and an insult to the intelligence and the pocket of the working population and a shameful diversion of cash away from the much fewer people who are genuinely incapable of paid employment.
Many of the 'professionals' going to this conference will have known no other period other than that of the golden years of Incapacity Benefit. Face facts, like all parties, this one is coming to an end.
Ted '
https://www1.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2005/10/324930.html
btw, is ted, baldwin, sounds very familar
'The party is over
12.10.2005 01:22
The government has most probably given up on those already on Incapacity Benefit, except for the most obvious cases of abuse. The message being sent out is that from now on new claimants will actually have to be incapable of work to get Incapacity Benefit, not just fed up with work at the local council or unable to find a job with a good wage after all the mines or factories in the area have shut. It's going to be a lot harder to persuade a government doctor that you've got ME, 'stress' or other some other dodgy illness, instead of just going to a GP who signs you off because he's got the nod from the government to help massage the unemployment figures. About time too. The current system is a joke and an insult to the intelligence and the pocket of the working population and a shameful diversion of cash away from the much fewer people who are genuinely incapable of paid employment.
Many of the 'professionals' going to this conference will have known no other period other than that of the golden years of Incapacity Benefit. Face facts, like all parties, this one is coming to an end.
Ted '
https://www1.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2005/10/324930.html
treelover said:
Obviously this total arsehole Ted has no idea whatsover how difficult it is to get Incapacity Benefit.
The "government" doctors as Ted puts it are clones of Dr Mengele timewarped in from the ramp at Auswitz.
Ted is the sort of person, along with Victor Lewis-Smith I would like kneecap with a lump-hammer and see how they get on claiming Incapacity Benefit.
Similar threads
