Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
tobyjug said:
No they didn't. And having read some of your other comments you have very little real knowledge and you just seem to want to fight someone.
tobyjug said:
Gaun yersel wee man.
US style welfare for the UK: thousands of jobs to go?
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
No they didn't. And having read some of your other comments you have very little real knowledge and you just seem to want to fight someone.
Gaun yersel wee man.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
AnnO'Neemus said:
I suppose so, in some places, and I will admit to having seen rubbish community care services. In many other places I have seen excellent services and excellent practice. As you said elsewhere, your main social care experience is in reception work some years ago. I have worked in the social care business and have been privileged to have take part in getting people out of institutions and into real life. This is pure politics, although not as some of you know it.
Is there anyone here who would really rather leave their own home, give up all their income except for a few quid pocket money, and live in a care home stinking of pee? If the ideal hasn't been achieved all over the country and for everyone who needs it, get stuck in, and make sure that disabled people are in control of their future. But don't go defending third class options just because they appear to be under threat.
I am against reducing or taking away disability benefits and JSA etc...
*however*
In my experience Job Centres, the DWP, "Action4Employment" and many of the other agencies, trainers and service providers that are supposedly there to help me back into work, claim the correct benefits and generally help me sort things out have been by and large absolutely shite. They have typically been next to useless, whereas voluntary organsations (eg the CAB, CSV, local disability, community and self-help organisations) which are typically more distant and arms-length from the government have been far better.
If these changes mean getting rid of the useless jobsworths and their pork-barrel con-artist mates who scam vast amounts of 'back-to-work/new-deal' money running bogus 'training schemes' and 'placements' then I won't be shedding any tears.
Then again, my preferred policy would be an accross-the-board basic citizens income paid directly into a bank account with no means testing or other pencil pushing bollocks that wastes so much time and money, and which acts as a disincentive for people to do small amounts of work, change location or otherwise upset a claim they have finally managed to get.
*however*
In my experience Job Centres, the DWP, "Action4Employment" and many of the other agencies, trainers and service providers that are supposedly there to help me back into work, claim the correct benefits and generally help me sort things out have been by and large absolutely shite. They have typically been next to useless, whereas voluntary organsations (eg the CAB, CSV, local disability, community and self-help organisations) which are typically more distant and arms-length from the government have been far better.
If these changes mean getting rid of the useless jobsworths and their pork-barrel con-artist mates who scam vast amounts of 'back-to-work/new-deal' money running bogus 'training schemes' and 'placements' then I won't be shedding any tears.
Then again, my preferred policy would be an accross-the-board basic citizens income paid directly into a bank account with no means testing or other pencil pushing bollocks that wastes so much time and money, and which acts as a disincentive for people to do small amounts of work, change location or otherwise upset a claim they have finally managed to get.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Actually, fullyplumped, I didn't say my main social care experience is in reception work some years ago. I mentioned that in relation to a specific point I was making regarding the difference between care homes/nursing homes, care workers/qualified nursing staff.Fullyplumped said:
I have had more 'experience'* of the social (lack of) care system recently, in relation to an accident, following which I needed, but didn't receive the assistance that I urgently needed, hence how I know, from bitter personal experience, how people in desperate need of assistance are told that they will have to wait two months for an assessment (when they need help at home *now*), and I'm a person who could phone around, make enquiries, try (and fail) to strongly advocate for myself.
NB: I say 'experience' because in fact I still lack the real, actual experience, because care and service provision was totally lacking in respect of my short term, temporary, urgent need following discharge from hospital after surgery following an accident.
Please refrain from taking one isolated comment, relating to a different point, and extrapolating it and assuming that forms the total of my knowledge and experience. There's lots of information that I am not comfortable with divulging on a public forum, when prejudice and discrimination against disabled people is still so prevalent in society.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Deleted: In hindsight, too much personal information. 
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
AnnO'Neemus said:
Sorry - you're right and I apologise. A two month wait for assessment is terrible and completely unacceptable. I would suggest you discuss this with a solicitor who knows public law.
Fullyplumped said:
My wife has been working in nursing homes for around 15years, (in charge of the night shift) I am well aware of what goes on. She has been a nurse since 1977. To be brutally frank old people get better nursing care in the average nursing home than they do in an NHS hospital. (That is not a reflection on NHS staff, it is just they are so overworked).
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Looks okay. I think I'll order up a copy through "Interloan".Fullyplumped said:
Very interesting. I've printed this one out because it has some good citeable stuff in it. The problem with it is that (as you say) it was released in 2000 (much of the data is, IIRC, from 1997-99) and the "numbers game" has undergone a fairly large change, with, for example, IB claims having dropped by 300,000 in 2003-4, so various forces (for example some of the "back to work" schemes are already having an effect.
What you have to bear in mind is that "new" Labour are proposing to bin the whole set of "back to work" ideas (which have been shown to have some slow long-term utility) in favour of meddling with the basic structures of benefit entitlement, which for them will have fast short-term utility (not least in terms of selling their "tough on fraud" stance to the tabloids).
This is the crux of the matter as far as I (and many other disabled people) am concerned: The government should be seeking to utilise policy that works best while doing least harm. Current arrangements may very well "hardly do people favours", but if new arrangements cause more harm, then what precisely is achieved except a tick of a box on the government's policy agenda?
I've often advocated a localised and personalised approach to possible rehabilitation into the "world of work", and by that I mean that central government would have to realise that disability/long-term illness is not a homogenous descriptor but a very loose definition of a wildly heterogenous client base. Rehabilitation should be tailored to individual needs and resources, and to what the client is capable of in their own estimation, rather than the current arbitrary attempts to "shoehorn" people with disparate care and mobility needs into whatever vacancy happens to appear on a VDU.
If the government actually sets any store at all in its "inclusivity" rhetoric, it should realise that, in this matter, inclusivity in employment has to be on the disabled/sick person's own terms, not with reference to a set of bureaucratically-defined doctrines.
Thanks
Similar threads
