This thread caught my eye due to the Governments new proposed tightening up of these benefits, no doubt Alex will spring along to say how brilliant they are to stop the scroungers, but if they do cut people off I pretty much guarantee the majority will be genuine cases, cos the scroungers will happily jump through whatever hoops the authorities put in front of them.

My dad went to ONE of these tribunals and refused to go ever again, he is completely unfit for work and my mother had to earn extra cash to get them by till his pension kicked in, he had worked for over 40years down the pits before he got ill.
He is a proud man and when he went to the tribunal he felt humiliated by their treatment of him.
Do you think a scrounger will feel too proud to play their games, no way, he'll laugh all the way to the bank while honest people will get squeezed out to meet government targets. Honest people are much easier to fob off.

The mentality of these boards seem to be, if they can force you by whatever means to give up on the claim, then you were obviously never bad enough to require it, which often is the opposite of the truth.
Unfortunately a small percentage of people are always going to fiddle the system (i.e. politicians expenses) but the majority are actually honest (even politicians).
But once again the tories will use a mallet to kill a fly, destroying half the house in the process.....and probably not even managing to kill the fly after all that.
Wonder if they will be accountable for the errors that lead to suicides, family break ups etc etc.
_________________
because you very very retardo i lose

For the record I would love every fake claimer to get hammered, but just don't want genuine peoples lives being ruined to achieve this. They are not collateral damage.
_________________
because you very very retardo i lose

Its not just scroungers vs genuine.

Its that previous definitions of disability included people who clearly aren't disabled under any natural or practical meaning of the word, for example, see the OP.

I'd be amazed if that definition hadn't slipped massively over the last decade, because it would reduce unemployment figures and wean people off self-sufficiency and on to benefits dependency, locking them into a Labour voting position.

So I would not be worried about the 500k people to be cut out, I expect most are at least a little bit genuine, but I bet they all can work.

People say my response to the OP was offensive, but I considered the OP more offensive to the thousands or millions of people that dread hearing their alarm clock every morning to drag themselves to a job they worry is going nowhere and that they will hate every day until retirement/death, but who man up and do it anyway.
_________________
http://www.alexbowler.com

Amen Zeb, I agree with everything you said. I think the thing I hate the most about Britain is that honest people get shat on from all angles by the system. It's been like this for as long as I can remember.
_________________
Some people tell me that I need help....

Alex B wrote: Its not just scroungers vs genuine.

Its that previous definitions of disability included people who clearly aren't disabled under any natural or practical meaning of the word, for example, see the OP.

I'd be amazed if that definition hadn't slipped massively over the last decade, because it would reduce unemployment figures and wean people off self-sufficiency and on to benefits dependency, locking them into a Labour voting position.

So I would not be worried about the 500k people to be cut out, I expect most are at least a little bit genuine, but I bet they all can work.

People say my response to the OP was offensive, but I considered the OP more offensive to the thousands or millions of people that dread hearing their alarm clock every morning to drag themselves to a job they worry is going nowhere and that they will hate every day until retirement/death, but who man up and do it anyway.

You're probably right, I'm sure you've picked up enough knowledge about what goes through the minds of normal working folk in your 10 years as a poker pro to be an expert on the matter.

You're probably right, I'm sure you've picked up enough knowledge about what goes through the minds of normal working folk in your 10 years as a poker pro to be an expert on the matter.

Quote: So I would not be worried about the 500k people to be cut out, I expect most are at least a little bit genuine, but I bet they all can work.

The ones that can work are the scroungers, the ones that can't are genuine. If they can work a bit then they should get a part-time job (like me) or they're scroungers. I dunno what to suggest for the people that can work a bit but couldn't afford to live on just part-time wages.


Quote: Its that previous definitions of disability included people who clearly aren't disabled under any natural or practical meaning of the word, for example, see the OP.

Times change old man, New diseases, conditions and disabilities are discovered all the time. When you can prove that everyone is just as depressed as each other but that people like you are super hard and just brush it off then you can be correct. Like usual.
_________________
Some people tell me that I need help....

The ones that can work are the scroungers, the ones that can't are genuine. If they can work a bit then they should get a part-time job (like me) or they're scroungers. I dunno what to suggest for the people that can work a bit but couldn't afford to live on just part-time wages.


Quote: Its that previous definitions of disability included people who clearly aren't disabled under any natural or practical meaning of the word, for example, see the OP.

Times change old man, New diseases, conditions and disabilities are discovered all the time. When you can prove that everyone is just as depressed as each other but that people like you are super hard and just brush it off then you can be correct. Like usual.
_________________
Some people tell me that I need help....

Times change old man, New diseases, conditions and disabilities are discovered all the time. When you can prove that everyone is just as depressed as each other but that people like you are super hard and just brush it off then you can be correct. Like usual.
_________________
Some people tell me that I need help....

Alex B wrote: People say my response to the OP was offensive, but I considered the OP more offensive to the thousands or millions of people that dread hearing their alarm clock every morning to drag themselves to a job they worry is going nowhere and that they will hate every day until retirement/death, but who man up and do it anyway.

Thanks Alex. You've just highlighted how ignorant you are of the realities of these situations.

You understand feeling anxious (as I assume even you have felt anxious, Alex); you understand not wanting to go to work (after all, you lived for a certain period of time without regular employment, and certainly without contributing to society, as a professional poker player *). Because of your ignorance, you equate somebody who suffers from anxiety - especially work-aggravated anxieties - as feeling like this... maybe a little more acutely, if you are feeling generous. I mean, "how much worse could it be?".

I have a friend who suffers terrible bouts of depression, work-aggravated anxiety, and agarophobia. She is genuinely one of the most motivated individuals I know. She is not work-shy - as is often the case, she holds employment as something far more sacred and important than I do (I hate work, and would stop tomorrow, if possible). When she is not able to work, she is not laughing at honest tax-payers whilst living the life of Riley - she just beats herself up worse because she views it as yet another failure in her life (her feelings, not mine). The anxieties that she suffers from are so far removed from those that I feel, as to be something completely different.

Although this is a complete assumption, I bet if you met her and discussed some of the issues she has to cope with, and looked at her general-quality of life, you would not say to her - serves you right you f'king loafer. You would probably be moved and upset. I say this as someone who has the impression that you are a complete low-life with little-to-no compassion BTW so don't think I'm seeking the soft inner Alex - because IMO you are a f'kin craven t**t.

I'd post another picture of a bubble coming out your nose, but TBH I can't be arsed, so this will have to do:-

** PLEASE INSERT PICTURE OF GIGANTIC NOSE BUBBLE HERE **


* Fair-dos here, I wish I was capable enough to do so, and would certainly not worry about my contribution to society - although I am, and always have been, glad to pay my taxes
_________________
PS: Ulysses1975
FTP: Ullysses1975

http://xpokerdiary.blogspot.com

'I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.' Edgar Allan Poe

Thanks Alex. You've just highlighted how ignorant you are of the realities of these situations.

You understand feeling anxious (as I assume even you have felt anxious, Alex); you understand not wanting to go to work (after all, you lived for a certain period of time without regular employment, and certainly without contributing to society, as a professional poker player *). Because of your ignorance, you equate somebody who suffers from anxiety - especially work-aggravated anxieties - as feeling like this... maybe a little more acutely, if you are feeling generous. I mean, "how much worse could it be?".

I have a friend who suffers terrible bouts of depression, work-aggravated anxiety, and agarophobia. She is genuinely one of the most motivated individuals I know. She is not work-shy - as is often the case, she holds employment as something far more sacred and important than I do (I hate work, and would stop tomorrow, if possible). When she is not able to work, she is not laughing at honest tax-payers whilst living the life of Riley - she just beats herself up worse because she views it as yet another failure in her life (her feelings, not mine). The anxieties that she suffers from are so far removed from those that I feel, as to be something completely different.

Although this is a complete assumption, I bet if you met her and discussed some of the issues she has to cope with, and looked at her general-quality of life, you would not say to her - serves you right you f'king loafer. You would probably be moved and upset. I say this as someone who has the impression that you are a complete low-life with little-to-no compassion BTW so don't think I'm seeking the soft inner Alex - because IMO you are a f'kin craven t**t.

I'd post another picture of a bubble coming out your nose, but TBH I can't be arsed, so this will have to do:-

** PLEASE INSERT PICTURE OF GIGANTIC NOSE BUBBLE HERE **


* Fair-dos here, I wish I was capable enough to do so, and would certainly not worry about my contribution to society - although I am, and always have been, glad to pay my taxes
_________________
PS: Ulysses1975
FTP: Ullysses1975

http://xpokerdiary.blogspot.com

'I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.' Edgar Allan Poe

Alex B wrote:

People say my response to the OP was offensive, but I considered the OP more offensive to the thousands or millions of people that dread hearing their alarm clock every morning to drag themselves to a job they worry is going nowhere and that they will hate every day until retirement/death, but who man up and do it anyway.

It's a great shame I cannot tell the 2 former work colleagues and good friends of mine who committed suicide that they should have just 'manned up and carried on'. Both, like me, suffered from chronic depression, but of course in your world that's irrelevant. Not everything, Alex, can be expressed in terms of a mathematical model.

I work despite said depression, chronic arthritis, irreparable nerve damage in my feet and diabetes. Like Rob, I found the medical assessment by the DHS a joke, which was borne out by a poor woman on breakfast tv this morning who is recovering from a brain hemorrhage. She is almost blind and paralysed in one arm, but the assessors said she was fine. So now 5 days a week I go through my own version of hell, because at my age, despite my academic qualifications I'm stuck in a crap job with no escape.

Keep enjoying your life in your own little bubble. You never know, it might never burst.
_________________
I'narr en gothrim glinuva nuin I'anor

Gurth gothrim Tel'Quessir

It's a great shame I cannot tell the 2 former work colleagues and good friends of mine who committed suicide that they should have just 'manned up and carried on'. Both, like me, suffered from chronic depression, but of course in your world that's irrelevant. Not everything, Alex, can be expressed in terms of a mathematical model.

I work despite said depression, chronic arthritis, irreparable nerve damage in my feet and diabetes. Like Rob, I found the medical assessment by the DHS a joke, which was borne out by a poor woman on breakfast tv this morning who is recovering from a brain hemorrhage. She is almost blind and paralysed in one arm, but the assessors said she was fine. So now 5 days a week I go through my own version of hell, because at my age, despite my academic qualifications I'm stuck in a crap job with no escape.

Keep enjoying your life in your own little bubble. You never know, it might never burst.
_________________
I'narr en gothrim glinuva nuin I'anor

Gurth gothrim Tel'Quessir

Could you describe an example of the least-severe anxiety case that would qualify as a disability? And similarly, the most severe case that definitely wouldn't qualify?

Contrary to some opinions in the thread, disabilities of this type aren't black and white, its a sliding scale, and the cut off point is to some extent arbitrary (and that's why politicians changing it isn't obviously wrong). That means that even if I am terribly wrong about this example, there will be a borderline case at which this discussion (and my opinion) is perfectly reasonable, and not at all offensive.

I felt like if a person can work perfectly well for a fortnight we are probably in that region, so I'm curious to know at what thresholds other posters would have managed to discuss the issue maturely?
_________________
http://www.alexbowler.com

gandalf55 wrote: Alex B wrote:

People say my response to the OP was offensive, but I considered the OP more offensive to the thousands or millions of people that dread hearing their alarm clock every morning to drag themselves to a job they worry is going nowhere and that they will hate every day until retirement/death, but who man up and do it anyway.

It's a great shame I cannot tell the 2 former work colleagues and good friends of mine who committed suicide that they should have just 'manned up and carried on'. Both, like me, suffered from chronic depression, but of course in your world that's irrelevant. Not everything, Alex, can be expressed in terms of a mathematical model.

I work despite said depression, chronic arthritis, irreparable nerve damage in my feet and diabetes. Like Rob, I found the medical assessment by the DHS a joke, which was borne out by a poor woman on breakfast tv this morning who is recovering from a brain hemorrhage. She is almost blind and paralysed in one arm, but the assessors said she was fine. So now 5 days a week I go through my own version of hell, because at my age, despite my academic qualifications I'm stuck in a crap job with no escape.

Keep enjoying your life in your own little bubble. You never know, it might never burst.

3 individual examples are completely irrelevant. There will be some examples of bad things happening to people at every level of every criteria. Following this logic you make a plan of leaving everyone at home on disability pay all the time, which, I suspect, wouldn't have brilliant economics behind it.
_________________
http://www.alexbowler.com

It's a great shame I cannot tell the 2 former work colleagues and good friends of mine who committed suicide that they should have just 'manned up and carried on'. Both, like me, suffered from chronic depression, but of course in your world that's irrelevant. Not everything, Alex, can be expressed in terms of a mathematical model.

I work despite said depression, chronic arthritis, irreparable nerve damage in my feet and diabetes. Like Rob, I found the medical assessment by the DHS a joke, which was borne out by a poor woman on breakfast tv this morning who is recovering from a brain hemorrhage. She is almost blind and paralysed in one arm, but the assessors said she was fine. So now 5 days a week I go through my own version of hell, because at my age, despite my academic qualifications I'm stuck in a crap job with no escape.

Keep enjoying your life in your own little bubble. You never know, it might never burst.

3 individual examples are completely irrelevant. There will be some examples of bad things happening to people at every level of every criteria. Following this logic you make a plan of leaving everyone at home on disability pay all the time, which, I suspect, wouldn't have brilliant economics behind it.
_________________
http://www.alexbowler.com

3 individual examples are completely irrelevant. There will be some examples of bad things happening to people at every level of every criteria. Following this logic you make a plan of leaving everyone at home on disability pay all the time, which, I suspect, wouldn't have brilliant economics behind it.
_________________
http://www.alexbowler.com

I don't imagine I would be able to discuss this maturely, at any threshold, as I am incredibly immature.

I'm not even entirely certain how much maturity has to do with this issue. But I scoff disdainfully at the implication that you have managed to discuss this maturely (I would endeavor to do my best Blackadder impression whilst scoffing).

At what threshold do you think you would have managed to discuss this maturely?

** Sketch of Balloon **
_________________
PS: Ulysses1975
FTP: Ullysses1975

http://xpokerdiary.blogspot.com

'I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.' Edgar Allan Poe

Last edited by X on Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:25 am; edited 1 time in total Back to top darrensprengers
Misclick


Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 4889

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:32 pm Post subject: Are you saying that "economically" as you put it we cannot afford to care for the small percentage with disability?

I dont mean this emotively or even arguing about the problems of the economic debt based model. i mean are you saying that within the scheme and remit that we cannot logistically and fiscally afford to care for them?

also are you saying that any model for care of non-profitable illnesses like mental illness should be economically driven as a priority? Care should be given within the boundaries of a budget regardless of any arbitrary short fall and anybody criticising, regardless of independent facts and rationale, should simply be told to "man up"?
_________________
The next best thing to gambling and winning is gambling and losing.

-- Nick "The Greek" Dandalos

Are you saying that "economically" as you put it we cannot afford to care for the small percentage with disability?

I dont mean this emotively or even arguing about the problems of the economic debt based model. i mean are you saying that within the scheme and remit that we cannot logistically and fiscally afford to care for them?

also are you saying that any model for care of non-profitable illnesses like mental illness should be economically driven as a priority? Care should be given within the boundaries of a budget regardless of any arbitrary short fall and anybody criticising, regardless of independent facts and rationale, should simply be told to "man up"?
_________________
The next best thing to gambling and winning is gambling and losing.

-- Nick "The Greek" Dandalos

darrensprengers wrote: Are you saying that "economically" as you put it we cannot afford to care for the small percentage with disability?

I dont mean this emotively or even arguing about the problems of the economic debt based model. i mean are you saying that within the scheme and remit that we cannot logistically and fiscally afford to care for them?

also are you saying that any model for care of non-profitable illnesses like mental illness should be economically driven as a priority? Care should be given within the boundaries of a budget regardless of any arbitrary short fall and anybody criticising, regardless of independent facts and rationale, should simply be told to "man up"?

No, I gave an extreme example that leaving everyone at home on disability wouldn't work economically, though it would be the conclusion Gandalf may need to come to through focusing on individual cases.

I think that ideologically we should help people unfortunate enough to be unable to work through disability. That still leaves my first question open.

We do, however, need to bear in mind that there is a finite amount of resource overall, and for each unnecessary disability benefits claim some child with cancer gets less treatment, or fewer police catch fewer paedophiles. That's why I consider questioning the issue as ethically positive.
_________________
http://www.alexbowler.com

No, I gave an extreme example that leaving everyone at home on disability wouldn't work economically, though it would be the conclusion Gandalf may need to come to through focusing on individual cases.

I think that ideologically we should help people unfortunate enough to be unable to work through disability. That still leaves my first question open.

We do, however, need to bear in mind that there is a finite amount of resource overall, and for each unnecessary disability benefits claim some child with cancer gets less treatment, or fewer police catch fewer paedophiles. That's why I consider questioning the issue as ethically positive.
_________________
http://www.alexbowler.com

Alex.

Twice you have called my responses irrelevant, and then failed to acknowledge reasonable responses that I have made. I guess this is easier than actually responding?

I guess it might help if I stopped posting pictures of bubbles and balloons [etc] but this is not an approach that I am prepared to take, ergo:



If you had a shred of human decency whatsoever you would respond to this post with something bland and complementary about the picture of bubble universes that I have taken the time to post for you.

But you won't, will you?

You. Callous. B'stard.


_________________
PS: Ulysses1975
FTP: Ullysses1975

http://xpokerdiary.blogspot.com

'I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.' Edgar Allan Poe

Alex B wrote: darrensprengers wrote: Are you saying that "economically" as you put it we cannot afford to care for the small percentage with disability?

I dont mean this emotively or even arguing about the problems of the economic debt based model. i mean are you saying that within the scheme and remit that we cannot logistically and fiscally afford to care for them?

also are you saying that any model for care of non-profitable illnesses like mental illness should be economically driven as a priority? Care should be given within the boundaries of a budget regardless of any arbitrary short fall and anybody criticising, regardless of independent facts and rationale, should simply be told to "man up"?

No, I gave an extreme example that leaving everyone at home on disability wouldn't work economically, though it would be the conclusion Gandalf may need to come to through focusing on individual cases.

I think that ideologically we should help people unfortunate enough to be unable to work through disability. That still leaves my first question open.

We do, however, need to bear in mind that there is a finite amount of resource overall, and for each unnecessary disability benefits claim some child with cancer gets less treatment, or fewer police catch fewer paedophiles. That's why I consider questioning the issue as ethically positive.

I did not think i would say this but i am starting to doubt whether you understand economic or fiscal reality or theory.

are you saying that as a direct result of letting a random group of people that are distributed evenly within the sample as ill and unable to pay tax, that as a direct result paedophiles are free to roam the streets and cancer suffers are not getting the care they need or deserve.

You have no mps knowledge. you have no knowledge of the care received by cancer sufferers and yet you can categorically state a connection.

please for my very logical mind bring a budgetary and fiscal connection between the two that is not you simply saying well if the government spent less on the disabled they could/would/should use that money for more police. I am not even sure if you can say there is a link to more police to less paedophiles.
_________________
The next best thing to gambling and winning is gambling and losing.

-- Nick "The Greek" Dandalos

No, I gave an extreme example that leaving everyone at home on disability wouldn't work economically, though it would be the conclusion Gandalf may need to come to through focusing on individual cases.

I think that ideologically we should help people unfortunate enough to be unable to work through disability. That still leaves my first question open.

We do, however, need to bear in mind that there is a finite amount of resource overall, and for each unnecessary disability benefits claim some child with cancer gets less treatment, or fewer police catch fewer paedophiles. That's why I consider questioning the issue as ethically positive.

I did not think i would say this but i am starting to doubt whether you understand economic or fiscal reality or theory.

are you saying that as a direct result of letting a random group of people that are distributed evenly within the sample as ill and unable to pay tax, that as a direct result paedophiles are free to roam the streets and cancer suffers are not getting the care they need or deserve.

You have no mps knowledge. you have no knowledge of the care received by cancer sufferers and yet you can categorically state a connection.

please for my very logical mind bring a budgetary and fiscal connection between the two that is not you simply saying well if the government spent less on the disabled they could/would/should use that money for more police. I am not even sure if you can say there is a link to more police to less paedophiles.
_________________
The next best thing to gambling and winning is gambling and losing.

-- Nick "The Greek" Dandalos

I did not think i would say this but i am starting to doubt whether you understand economic or fiscal reality or theory.

are you saying that as a direct result of letting a random group of people that are distributed evenly within the sample as ill and unable to pay tax, that as a direct result paedophiles are free to roam the streets and cancer suffers are not getting the care they need or deserve.

You have no mps knowledge. you have no knowledge of the care received by cancer sufferers and yet you can categorically state a connection.

please for my very logical mind bring a budgetary and fiscal connection between the two that is not you simply saying well if the government spent less on the disabled they could/would/should use that money for more police. I am not even sure if you can say there is a link to more police to less paedophiles.
_________________
The next best thing to gambling and winning is gambling and losing.

-- Nick "The Greek" Dandalos