Disabled Benefits

FastEddie · May 1

Emp_Fab said:

"Veteran" "Labor" "Gross" - all very American words. Are you British? Do you live in Britain?

Yes.
I'm bored with the spell check on Labour. There you go, a subtle manipulation at work. I got too lazy to change it.

Veteran is a great word for those of us who served. Better than the previous mash-ups.

FastEddie · May 1

breakstuff said:

FastEddie said:

I would wager there are some who will be hard done by but the problem is that too many have abused the system.
Benefits should be for the few - those who have a 100% need for them.

As an injured veteran, and one who has worked through so many injuries and set-backs, I find it obscene that people game the system.

There are plenty who can get a job but prefer a life on benefits.

If you distilled all the claimants down to those in genuine need then we could have a fair system.
The problem is that social media, bad diets, and propaganda have convinced many that they have a 'mental illness'.

Change you diet, do some exercise, stop watching pointless media and get a job.

Work sets you free.
Leave benefits for those with a true need.

It will get worse under Labor. They will create millions of victims and medicate them to the eyeballs. Gross.

Can I also ask why you have the words mental illness in inverted commas? Are you suggesting 'it's not a thing'?

It doesn't exist?

The definition has been so stretched to include "life problems", normal anxiety, and other day to day swings of mood.
In the Veteran community the words PTSD are banded around as a badge of honour. Real PTSD is awful. Some are using it to exaggerate their experiences.
The same for youngsters - 'I have anxiety' - 'I need a safe space'. Utter nonsense.
This is where the benefit culture begins.

Read the stoics. Get a dog. Change your diet. Go for a walk. Joy is everywhere, find it.

robgilmo · May 1

FastEddie said:

breakstuff said:

FastEddie said:

I would wager there are some who will be hard done by but the problem is that too many have abused the system.
Benefits should be for the few - those who have a 100% need for them.

As an injured veteran, and one who has worked through so many injuries and set-backs, I find it obscene that people game the system.

There are plenty who can get a job but prefer a life on benefits.

If you distilled all the claimants down to those in genuine need then we could have a fair system.
The problem is that social media, bad diets, and propaganda have convinced many that they have a 'mental illness'.

Change you diet, do some exercise, stop watching pointless media and get a job.

Work sets you free.
Leave benefits for those with a true need.

It will get worse under Labor. They will create millions of victims and medicate them to the eyeballs. Gross.

Can I also ask why you have the words mental illness in inverted commas? Are you suggesting 'it's not a thing'?

It doesn't exist?

The definition has been so stretched to include "life problems", normal anxiety, and other day to day swings of mood.
In the Veteran community the words PTSD are banded around as a badge of honour. Real PTSD is awful. Some are using it to exaggerate their experiences.
The same for youngsters - 'I have anxiety' - 'I need a safe space'. Utter nonsense.
This is where the benefit culture begins.

Read the stoics. Get a dog. Change your diet. Go for a walk. Joy is everywhere, find it.

Are you the kind of guy who tells depression sufferers to cheer up by any chance?

Has it ever occured to you that you may be wrong and as a result quite hurtful?

DrCornelius · May 1

FastEddie said:

breakstuff said:

FastEddie said:

I would wager there are some who will be hard done by but the problem is that too many have abused the system.
Benefits should be for the few - those who have a 100% need for them.

As an injured veteran, and one who has worked through so many injuries and set-backs, I find it obscene that people game the system.

There are plenty who can get a job but prefer a life on benefits.

If you distilled all the claimants down to those in genuine need then we could have a fair system.
The problem is that social media, bad diets, and propaganda have convinced many that they have a 'mental illness'.

Change you diet, do some exercise, stop watching pointless media and get a job.

Work sets you free.
Leave benefits for those with a true need.

It will get worse under Labor. They will create millions of victims and medicate them to the eyeballs. Gross.

Can I also ask why you have the words mental illness in inverted commas? Are you suggesting 'it's not a thing'?

It doesn't exist?

The definition has been so stretched to include "life problems", normal anxiety, and other day to day swings of mood.
In the Veteran community the words PTSD are banded around as a badge of honour. Real PTSD is awful. Some are using it to exaggerate their experiences.
The same for youngsters - 'I have anxiety' - 'I need a safe space'. Utter nonsense.
This is where the benefit culture begins.

Read the stoics. Get a dog. Change your diet. Go for a walk. Joy is everywhere, find it.

As someone who has personal experience as well as working in MH for about 15 years I’ll be honest and say I don’t disagree with everything you have said.

i also think we are medicalising normal human emotions sometimes in young people especially . Your final paragraph is similar to a lot of early stage interventions for ‘low mood’. Full blown depression as very different and needs proper support / therapy or medication.

I think if this wasn’t the internet and we were having a cuppa we’d have quite an interesting conversation as I’d like to think you aren’t as unfeeling as you came across in your first post

Greatape · May 1

DrCornelius said:

Its classic Tory media spin isn't it. Get the Daily Mail to run loads of articles about asylum seekers committing crimes, benefits claimants having mobile phones and giant TVs and turn working people's frustration against those struggling the most. The last thing they want is for working people to look at the gap between rich and poor widening ever further and the destruction of the middle classes as that threatens the people at the top

This is exactly it.

Also, look at the dire state of support services from Sure Start to CAMHS etc. All destroyed or undermined by the mostly unnecessary and ideological austerity cuts under the present govt. Also consider the absence of MH support for kids coming out of lockdown (a key part of support packages in other countries). If you wanted to reduce crime and benefits take up, maybe you should start there.

This is a problem they made much worse, and now they are sowing division in an effort to score cheap political points.

I've seen the RH M Stride pontificating about this in the media, and I can attest to the fact that in addition to his willfully ignorant position, he is widely considered to be a fucking useless MP, to boot.

Also consider the future that kids have to look forward to: get a degree so you can...rent a bedroom?

m_c · May 1

thumpingrug said:
But this simply isnt true.

There are NOT lots of people gaming the system.

There is NOT an "alcoholic allowance"

So what if the carer chooses to go to Spain - it's her money - she needs the rest for fuck sake. Carers allowance is £80 per week for a minimum - MINIMUM - of 35 hours per week. Even if she only does that minimum - its only just over £2 per hour. She may get other income to top this up but that will be means tested - so yes she skint and probably budgets like fuck to be able to get a cheap break every so often - it might even be paid for by the cared for a person - who is also going on holiday and need the carer to go with them.

She wont get a car for being a carer it will belong to the person she's caring for.

Autism is a complex illness affecting people is different ways - are you a doctor

and are you suggesting that a cancer diagnosis was a good thing??? - you need to reexamine some of your own life choices.

It is true though.
It used to be that if you could prove you were an alcoholic, you'd get about £70 extra a week. I'm not sure of the exact allowance, but it did exist. I'm guessing it probably doesn't exist now.

Kinship carers get a different allowance from a normal carer, which is actually less than a normal carer, as it's to help cover costs of raising another family members kids. You still get any other benefits you'd be entitled to as well, such as disability/unemployment, plus any child benefits for who you're caring for.
The fact is, if those kids were raised by their own parents, they would have to live on less money.
And I wouldn't say 4 trips abroad a year is an 'occasional' break.
How many parents could afford that?

I'm well aware that autism is a scale/spectrum, as I know a few people who it really does effect their daily lifes, but they've learnt to handle it and life a fairly normal life.
But when you meet somebody who appears to function entirely normally, will go into crowds, doesn't worry about going somewhere new, and who's diagnosis took multiple attempts (his dad used to discuss how they were 'disappointed' the assessment results were 'wrong', and continually pushed for reassessment), I'm sure you to would be questioning if they really are impaired enough to need disability benefits.

A cancer diagnosis is never a good thing, but their attitude to it was quite weird. I think the best way to describe it was that they were quite 'boastful' about all the extra benefits that they were now able to claim, and never outwardly worried about the cancer itself.

Offset · May 1

DrCornelius said:

FastEddie said:

breakstuff said:

FastEddie said:

I would wager there are some who will be hard done by but the problem is that too many have abused the system.
Benefits should be for the few - those who have a 100% need for them.

As an injured veteran, and one who has worked through so many injuries and set-backs, I find it obscene that people game the system.

There are plenty who can get a job but prefer a life on benefits.

If you distilled all the claimants down to those in genuine need then we could have a fair system.
The problem is that social media, bad diets, and propaganda have convinced many that they have a 'mental illness'.

Change you diet, do some exercise, stop watching pointless media and get a job.

Work sets you free.
Leave benefits for those with a true need.

It will get worse under Labor. They will create millions of victims and medicate them to the eyeballs. Gross.

Can I also ask why you have the words mental illness in inverted commas? Are you suggesting 'it's not a thing'?

It doesn't exist?

The definition has been so stretched to include "life problems", normal anxiety, and other day to day swings of mood.
In the Veteran community the words PTSD are banded around as a badge of honour. Real PTSD is awful. Some are using it to exaggerate their experiences.
The same for youngsters - 'I have anxiety' - 'I need a safe space'. Utter nonsense.
This is where the benefit culture begins.

Read the stoics. Get a dog. Change your diet. Go for a walk. Joy is everywhere, find it.

As someone who has personal experience as well as working in MH for about 15 years I’ll be honest and say I don’t disagree with everything you have said.

i also think we are medicalising normal human emotions sometimes in young people especially . Your final paragraph is similar to a lot of early stage interventions for ‘low mood’. Full blown depression as very different and needs proper support / therapy or medication.

I think if this wasn’t the internet and we were having a cuppa we’d have quite an interesting conversation as I’d like to think you aren’t as unfeeling as you came across in your first post

Excellent post @DrCornelius ;

thumpingrug · May 1

m_c said:

thumpingrug said:
But this simply isnt true.

There are NOT lots of people gaming the system.

There is NOT an "alcoholic allowance"

So what if the carer chooses to go to Spain - it's her money - she needs the rest for fuck sake. Carers allowance is £80 per week for a minimum - MINIMUM - of 35 hours per week. Even if she only does that minimum - its only just over £2 per hour. She may get other income to top this up but that will be means tested - so yes she skint and probably budgets like fuck to be able to get a cheap break every so often - it might even be paid for by the cared for a person - who is also going on holiday and need the carer to go with them.

She wont get a car for being a carer it will belong to the person she's caring for.

Autism is a complex illness affecting people is different ways - are you a doctor

and are you suggesting that a cancer diagnosis was a good thing??? - you need to reexamine some of your own life choices.

It is true though.
It used to be that if you could prove you were an alcoholic, you'd get about £70 extra a week. I'm not sure of the exact allowance, but it did exist. I'm guessing it probably doesn't exist now.

Kinship carers get a different allowance from a normal carer, which is actually less than a normal carer, as it's to help cover costs of raising another family members kids. You still get any other benefits you'd be entitled to as well, such as disability/unemployment, plus any child benefits for who you're caring for.
The fact is, if those kids were raised by their own parents, they would have to live on less money.
And I wouldn't say 4 trips abroad a year is an 'occasional' break.
How many parents could afford that?

I'm well aware that autism is a scale/spectrum, as I know a few people who it really does effect their daily lifes, but they've learnt to handle it and life a fairly normal life.
But when you meet somebody who appears to function entirely normally, will go into crowds, doesn't worry about going somewhere new, and who's diagnosis took multiple attempts (his dad used to discuss how they were 'disappointed' the assessment results were 'wrong', and continually pushed for reassessment), I'm sure you to would be questioning if they really are impaired enough to need disability benefits.

A cancer diagnosis is never a good thing, but their attitude to it was quite weird. I think the best way to describe it was that they were quite 'boastful' about all the extra benefits that they were now able to claim, and never outwardly worried about the cancer itself.

So. Bit of background, so I don't sound like im just ranting. I spend 35 years of my working life advising on welfare benefits. I started in the mid-80s, under Supplementary Benefit legislation and there was still an aspect of the original National Assistance Act in place from the 1940s at that time. I have seen the introduction of multiple different benefit regimes over that time right up to and including the current Universal Credit and PIP benefits. I know what I'm talking about on this one.

In UK benefit law, there is not and never has been an alcoholic alliance. NEVER.

There is no such thing as "kinship" carers allowance. What you refer to is probably temporary fostering payments that are paid by social services NOT by the welfare state. They are very different and you should not confuse the two. They are not means tested and are indeed paid when it is better for the children to be with a distant relative than in a care placement. Something has gone incredibly wrong within that young person's life for them to need that level of support and a social worker will be all over it. It will likely also be short-term term not permanent.

Again - Autism is a complex condition and each person is affected uniquely - I would not make sweeping statements about how they cope in one setting as to how that impacts them in another.

Cancer can be life-changing for some people and if that means they get a bit of financial support - and it really is only a bit- then fair play to them.

Im not going to debate this any further. You have been misinformed - possibly by irresponsible media coverage or you have taken on board myths that are simply not true, you know the one where homeless people get more benefits if they have a dog.

(ps, just in case - and sorry to shatter your illusions - that's not true either)

m_c · May 1

thumpingrug said:

So. Bit of background, so I don't sound like im just ranting. I spend 35 years of my working life advising on welfare benefits. I started in the mid-80s, under Supplementary Benefit legislation and there was still an aspect of the original National Assistance Act in place from the 1940s at that time. I have seen the introduction of multiple different benefit regimes over that time right up to and including the current Universal Credit and PIP benefits. I know what I'm talking about on this one.

In UK benefit law, there is not and never has been an alcoholic alliance. NEVER.

There is no such thing as "kinship" carers allowance. What you refer to is probably temporary fostering payments that are paid by social services NOT by the welfare state. They are very different and you should not confuse the two. They are not means tested and are indeed paid when it is better for the children to be with a distant relative than in a care placement. Something has gone incredibly wrong within that young person's life for them to need that level of support and a social worker will be all over it. It will likely also be short-term term not permanent.

Again - Autism is a complex condition and each person is affected uniquely - I would not make sweeping statements about how they cope in one setting as to how that impacts them in another.

Cancer can be life-changing for some people and if that means they get a bit of financial support - and it really is only a bit- then fair play to them.

Im not going to debate this any further. You have been misinformed - possibly by irresponsible media coverage or you have taken on board myths that are simply not true, you know the one where homeless people get more benefits if they have a dog.

(ps, just in case - and sorry to shatter your illusions - that's not true either)

I've not been misinformed.
All that is from actually knowing these people.

I'm not sure what the alcoholic allowance actually was, but the guy in person knew that if he turned up drunk so many times to the job centre, he'd get the allowance and not have to attend as often.
He was a nice guy, and if sober was a good worker who could hold down a job for months at a time, but could also disappear for weeks/months due to drink.

I'd forgotten the kinship allowances were social work not benefits. I did know quite a bit about them, due to family issues.

Again I'm well aware Autism affects different people differently, but the example I used, I knew them for a good few years, and as somebody else who's a good bit more compassionate than me said, "What they really need is a hard kick up the a##e".

It's something I'd agree with @DrCornelius 's last post about normal emotions are becoming medicalised.
There are those who genuinely do need help and support, but then there are those who seem to want to have something wrong with them.
I think easy access to information is a large part of the problem. In years gone by, you went to your parent/teacher/doctor, and you'd largely believe what they told you.
Feeling anxious? Just get on with it.
Feeling a bit down? Go and do something you'll enjoy.

Now a couple searches and you can head down a rabbit hole of possible issues you might have. I think it's the modern day equivalent of hypochondriacs who spent their days reading medical books.

Something that has stuck in my mind from a BHF speaker at a conference a few years ago, was around the Green Gym aka getting out and doing something. Research shows that going outside and doing something was far more beneficial than a lot of anxiety/depression medications, however nobody wanted to invest in it.
GPs don't want the confrontation with patients, so they simply prescribed medication, and the NHS only spends a small fraction of it's budget on prevention.

But the issue now, is tell somebody that they just need to get on with it, or just go and get some exercise, and you'll be criticised for being non-compassionate. There needs to be a balance.

robgilmo · May 1

m_c said:

thumpingrug said:

So. Bit of background, so I don't sound like im just ranting. I spend 35 years of my working life advising on welfare benefits. I started in the mid-80s, under Supplementary Benefit legislation and there was still an aspect of the original National Assistance Act in place from the 1940s at that time. I have seen the introduction of multiple different benefit regimes over that time right up to and including the current Universal Credit and PIP benefits. I know what I'm talking about on this one.

In UK benefit law, there is not and never has been an alcoholic alliance. NEVER.

There is no such thing as "kinship" carers allowance. What you refer to is probably temporary fostering payments that are paid by social services NOT by the welfare state. They are very different and you should not confuse the two. They are not means tested and are indeed paid when it is better for the children to be with a distant relative than in a care placement. Something has gone incredibly wrong within that young person's life for them to need that level of support and a social worker will be all over it. It will likely also be short-term term not permanent.

Again - Autism is a complex condition and each person is affected uniquely - I would not make sweeping statements about how they cope in one setting as to how that impacts them in another.

Cancer can be life-changing for some people and if that means they get a bit of financial support - and it really is only a bit- then fair play to them.

Im not going to debate this any further. You have been misinformed - possibly by irresponsible media coverage or you have taken on board myths that are simply not true, you know the one where homeless people get more benefits if they have a dog.

(ps, just in case - and sorry to shatter your illusions - that's not true either)

I've not been misinformed.
All that is from actually knowing these people.

I'm not sure what the alcoholic allowance actually was, but the guy in person knew that if he turned up drunk so many times to the job centre, he'd get the allowance and not have to attend as often.
He was a nice guy, and if sober was a good worker who could hold down a job for months at a time, but could also disappear for weeks/months due to drink.

I'd forgotten the kinship allowances were social work not benefits. I did know quite a bit about them, due to family issues.

Again I'm well aware Autism affects different people differently, but the example I used, I knew them for a good few years, and as somebody else who's a good bit more compassionate than me said, "What they really need is a hard kick up the a##e".

It's something I'd agree with @DrCornelius 's last post about normal emotions are becoming medicalised.
There are those who genuinely do need help and support, but then there are those who seem to want to have something wrong with them.
I think easy access to information is a large part of the problem. In years gone by, you went to your parent/teacher/doctor, and you'd largely believe what they told you.
Feeling anxious? Just get on with it.
Feeling a bit down? Go and do something you'll enjoy.

Now a couple searches and you can head down a rabbit hole of possible issues you might have. I think it's the modern day equivalent of hypochondriacs who spent their days reading medical books.

Something that has stuck in my mind from a BHF speaker at a conference a few years ago, was around the Green Gym aka getting out and doing something. Research shows that going outside and doing something was far more beneficial than a lot of anxiety/depression medications, however nobody wanted to invest in it.
GPs don't want the confrontation with patients, so they simply prescribed medication, and the NHS only spends a small fraction of it's budget on prevention.

But the issue now, is tell somebody that they just need to get on with it, or just go and get some exercise, and you'll be criticised for being non-compassionate. There needs to be a balance.

Or perhaps in days gone by mental health issues went unnoticed, perhaps todays stresses are more than they were years ago, schools for instance demand more from pupils these days and it does effect their mental health, jobs are getting more stressful, I have been a mechanic for donkeys and I can tell you the job has never been so stressful as it is today, house prices, global warming, all these things add up and if you have a fragile frame of mind these things can and will get the better of you.
We have more familys being made homeless than we ever had, imagine what they are going through? Working poverty is at high levels, so you go to work every day and still cant get out of debt or afford a decent standard of living, that takes a toll, then of course you have people who 'Im alright jack' use words such as 'just get on with it' 'go for a walk' etc etc, for a lot of people the world is an unfair , cruel place no matter how hard you try to make it anything but, in my view the increase of mental health issues is a product of our modern society and not because people are simply too soft.

S56035 · May 1

FastEddie said:

breakstuff said:

FastEddie said:

I would wager there are some who will be hard done by but the problem is that too many have abused the system.
Benefits should be for the few - those who have a 100% need for them.

As an injured veteran, and one who has worked through so many injuries and set-backs, I find it obscene that people game the system.

There are plenty who can get a job but prefer a life on benefits.

If you distilled all the claimants down to those in genuine need then we could have a fair system.
The problem is that social media, bad diets, and propaganda have convinced many that they have a 'mental illness'.

Change you diet, do some exercise, stop watching pointless media and get a job.

Work sets you free.
Leave benefits for those with a true need.

It will get worse under Labor. They will create millions of victims and medicate them to the eyeballs. Gross.

That last paragraph is quite a leap. Care to back that up with some reasoning?

Sure.
Labor have already said they will provide mental health support staff in schools.

There is the conveyor belt of medicated victims and voters. Designed to be glued to state benefits through constant affirmation, medication, and merge benefits.
It is a policy of grooming and is a shocking treatment of the young.

The other problem is diet. Kids swigging Red Bull and those awful Monster drinks. Eating industrial waste made to look pretty and laced with awful chemicals.

Obesity is rife as a result of all the above. It is a quiet and slow dumbing down of society.

There is no political party in the UK strong enough to stop it.

You know what we should do with all those fat kids? We should put them all into a summer camp, get them to work for no pay, give them minimal food to get them down to their BMI. You know we could even get them to do some medical tests while they're there. We could put a nice big sign up on the gate saying something about work. Sounds lovely.

robgilmo · May 1

S56035 said:

FastEddie said:

breakstuff said:

FastEddie said:

I would wager there are some who will be hard done by but the problem is that too many have abused the system.
Benefits should be for the few - those who have a 100% need for them.

As an injured veteran, and one who has worked through so many injuries and set-backs, I find it obscene that people game the system.

There are plenty who can get a job but prefer a life on benefits.

If you distilled all the claimants down to those in genuine need then we could have a fair system.
The problem is that social media, bad diets, and propaganda have convinced many that they have a 'mental illness'.

Change you diet, do some exercise, stop watching pointless media and get a job.

Work sets you free.
Leave benefits for those with a true need.

It will get worse under Labor. They will create millions of victims and medicate them to the eyeballs. Gross.

That last paragraph is quite a leap. Care to back that up with some reasoning?

Sure.
Labor have already said they will provide mental health support staff in schools.

There is the conveyor belt of medicated victims and voters. Designed to be glued to state benefits through constant affirmation, medication, and merge benefits.
It is a policy of grooming and is a shocking treatment of the young.

The other problem is diet. Kids swigging Red Bull and those awful Monster drinks. Eating industrial waste made to look pretty and laced with awful chemicals.

Obesity is rife as a result of all the above. It is a quiet and slow dumbing down of society.

There is no political party in the UK strong enough to stop it.

You know what we should do with all those fat kids? We should put them all into a summer camp, get them to work for no pay, give them minimal food to get them down to their BMI. You know we could even get them to do some medical tests while they're there. We could put a nice big sign up on the gate saying something about work. Sounds lovely.

The fact that it effects the poorer people in our society speaks volumes, the problem isnt diet , its the lack of affordability to actually eat healthy meals.

Overweight and obesity in adults - NHS England Digital

Its a social desiese.

bbill335 · May 1

the PIP they're on about cutting is not means tested so recipients are not necessarily the shiftless sponges that the capital-fascists among us would believe.

anyone on the fiddle for a little bit of benefits is putting in a lot of headache for little reward. and they're still far, FAR less crooked than the pieces of shit pushing big numbers around in banks and government

Greatape · May 1

m_c said:

thumpingrug said:

So. Bit of background, so I don't sound like im just ranting. I spend 35 years of my working life advising on welfare benefits. I started in the mid-80s, under Supplementary Benefit legislation and there was still an aspect of the original National Assistance Act in place from the 1940s at that time. I have seen the introduction of multiple different benefit regimes over that time right up to and including the current Universal Credit and PIP benefits. I know what I'm talking about on this one.

In UK benefit law, there is not and never has been an alcoholic alliance. NEVER.

There is no such thing as "kinship" carers allowance. What you refer to is probably temporary fostering payments that are paid by social services NOT by the welfare state. They are very different and you should not confuse the two. They are not means tested and are indeed paid when it is better for the children to be with a distant relative than in a care placement. Something has gone incredibly wrong within that young person's life for them to need that level of support and a social worker will be all over it. It will likely also be short-term term not permanent.

Again - Autism is a complex condition and each person is affected uniquely - I would not make sweeping statements about how they cope in one setting as to how that impacts them in another.

Cancer can be life-changing for some people and if that means they get a bit of financial support - and it really is only a bit- then fair play to them.

Im not going to debate this any further. You have been misinformed - possibly by irresponsible media coverage or you have taken on board myths that are simply not true, you know the one where homeless people get more benefits if they have a dog.

(ps, just in case - and sorry to shatter your illusions - that's not true either)

I've not been misinformed.
All that is from actually knowing these people.

I'm not sure what the alcoholic allowance actually was, but the guy in person knew that if he turned up drunk so many times to the job centre, he'd get the allowance and not have to attend as often.
He was a nice guy, and if sober was a good worker who could hold down a job for months at a time, but could also disappear for weeks/months due to drink.

I'd forgotten the kinship allowances were social work not benefits. I did know quite a bit about them, due to family issues.

Again I'm well aware Autism affects different people differently, but the example I used, I knew them for a good few years, and as somebody else who's a good bit more compassionate than me said, "What they really need is a hard kick up the a##e".

It's something I'd agree with @DrCornelius 's last post about normal emotions are becoming medicalised.
There are those who genuinely do need help and support, but then there are those who seem to want to have something wrong with them.
I think easy access to information is a large part of the problem. In years gone by, you went to your parent/teacher/doctor, and you'd largely believe what they told you.
Feeling anxious? Just get on with it.
Feeling a bit down? Go and do something you'll enjoy.

Now a couple searches and you can head down a rabbit hole of possible issues you might have. I think it's the modern day equivalent of hypochondriacs who spent their days reading medical books.

Something that has stuck in my mind from a BHF speaker at a conference a few years ago, was around the Green Gym aka getting out and doing something. Research shows that going outside and doing something was far more beneficial than a lot of anxiety/depression medications, however nobody wanted to invest in it.
GPs don't want the confrontation with patients, so they simply prescribed medication, and the NHS only spends a small fraction of it's budget on prevention.

But the issue now, is tell somebody that they just need to get on with it, or just go and get some exercise, and you'll be criticised for being non-compassionate. There needs to be a balance.

Horticultural therapy for MH is actually 'a thing ' in the NHS. Further, the NHS also supports people with MH issues in obtaining and retaining employment. But if course, funding isn't nearly enough to meet need.

Access to talking therapy is so badly underfunded now - alongside other therapies such as speech therapy - that criteria for acceptance to service have evolved in many cases to 'are they about to jump off a bridge?' (or similar). I.e. there is very, very little capacity to prevent or to intervene at an early stage, when potential outcome would be better and more easily achieved. A lot of people no longer meet the evolving criteria for an autism diagnosis referral, for this reason. (Postcode lottery)

There's also a huge lack of specialist school space and the barriers to access are almost insurmountable. So you have a huge amount of kids with neurodiversity or real anxiety just treading water in mainstream school (or sinking). Exacerbated by the ridiculous modern trend of near-authoritarian discipline in academies. (Wrong socks? Detention. Or sent home.)

Meanwhile, Michelle Mone appropriates £29m. And that's the tip of the iceberg. £8bn COVID fraud we aren't pursuing. Much, much more on track and trace. But this is well known. But still - benefit fraudsters, eh?

Cutting benefits without taking up that slack by properly funding and expanding support services is absolutely ludicrous. Fingers in their ears.

Offset · May 1

Do you know what this particular thread is going to do?

BluesLover · May 1

Here is a well written view (in my opinion)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/may/01/rishi-sunak-welfare-support-depression-anxiety

blobb · May 1

I have first hand experience of PIP and disability support -which is aligned with some the absolute horror stories conveyed in this thread - and I also pay my taxes. This is my view: Let the scroungers scrounge.

If the price I have to pay for a compassionate system of support for those less able than myself is a degree of freeloaders milking the system, so be it.

From what I have seen, the Tories explicitly target disabled people. They must be prevented from doing further harm.

robgilmo · May 1

blobb said:

I have first hand experience of PIP and disability support -which is aligned with some the absolute horror stories conveyed in this thread - and I also pay my taxes. This is my view: Let the scroungers scrounge.

If the price I have to pay for a compassionate system of support for those less able than myself is a degree of freeloaders milking the system, so be it.

From what I have seen, the Tories explicitly target disabled people. They must be prevented from doing further harm.

People have this view, I think we pay into the pot as insurance for when/if we fall on our arses, and it can happen to anyone of us at any time, thats the price we all pay. Making other feel guilty in anyway for this is wrong, people dont choose to become ill and nobody should feel or be made to feel like they are doing something wrong.

hollywoodrox · May 1

Offset said:

Do you know what this particular thread is going to do?

I’ve not heard this for ages ,used to love it

CavemanGrogg · May 5

Here's something else I find shockingly disgusting about all this, pensions and benefits are basically seen as the same thing by both the public and politicians of all flavours, and worse than that:

Yesterday, Saturday, a rather large group of us went and shot each other, though to be honest they mainly shot me, with those air soft guns - I have no idea why they're called air soft guns they're anything but soft when you get shot by one, at a facility set up for air soft gaming and stuff. Over 20 of us, it was not what I was expecting to be honest, but I digress here. Now renting out an air soft facility large enough for a group of over 20 people - there was actually 28 of us, to have all to ourselves is not cheap, even when it's divided between everybody equally and no equipment is needed to be rented, or marshals to monitor the game. So everybody involved yesterday, was not just employed, they where employed full time, out of all of us, ignoring child benefits and pensions - yes a 70 year old gave me a good beating yesterday, all but 3 people and myself, where on some form of benefits. These are people in full time employment, granted not all of them where executives and CEOs, quite a number of them where on or at least closer to minimum wage than they are above it, but the where also people at management level and even above that, receiving some form of benefit, besides the state pension or child benefits - one person was even the owner of a company that employs half a dozen people and he was receiving some form of benefit unrelated to health issues or rather PIP or what used to be the disability living allowance.

This tells me that either wages are not high enough if people who are employed full time are on some form or amount of benefits, again not child benefits, pensions, or PIP, or that we as tax payers, are wasting an absolute fortune financially subsidising companies that are not financially viable, and never will be financially viable enough to pay their staff enough so that they don't require the government/tax payer to help pay their employees salaries.

After hearing this, I'm, actually shocked that job centers, benefits advisors, and assessors aren't in every chain retailer in the UK, as it seems to be their staff's salaries - places like Tesco, ASDA, Sports Direct, M&S, Aldi and so forth like Walmart used to do in the States not joking look it up Walmart used to employ people to help the staff they employ get food stamps and social security benefits Walmart was dragged before congress because of this, who the government/taxpayer are subsidising, if not out right paying the most.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Disabled Benefits

Comments