March of the disabled

Disabled people to march in London against cuts to benefits and services

They can’t be that disabled then.

Whilst the genuinely disabled to have a legitimate reason to be upset, what they should be angry at is governments who over the last half century have inflated the ranks of the registered disabled by allowing people with questionable ailments in order to reduce the politically important unemployment statistics.

32 comments for “March of the disabled

  1. Maaarrghk!
    May 12, 2011 at 6:43 am

    Perhaps it’s just seen as a little un-pc to go for the headline “Disabled people trundle in London against the cuts”.

    Although I agree with Ross’s sentiments, but would tend to think that the problem he describes is something that has occurred in the last fifty rather than hundred years.

    • May 12, 2011 at 7:08 am

      I think the ‘have’ is a typo for ‘half’, so Ross does mean the last fifty years! 🙂

  2. May 12, 2011 at 7:15 am

    On Twitter, there was much discussion of this yesterday, with (of course) those who raised this issue being decried as heartless Tory monsters who want the poor and disabled to starve in the gutters. A frequent accusation was that we were ‘unaware of the fact that we could become disabled ourselves’, a retort often hurled at people who identified as disabled… 🙄

    There was also much speculation as to the breakdown of the numbers involved – how many were genuinely disabled and how many were workers in the ancilliary industries, quangos and services that rely on them for jobs..?

    • May 12, 2011 at 7:19 am

      That last point is vital – how many are dependent on them for jobs. The old non-jobs story again which, if you connect it with Bucko’s post on charities and dependency, paints a gloomy picture.

  3. May 12, 2011 at 7:23 am

    Oh yes!! Of course! that’s what we should be angry about.

    Not leaving people in their own filth for want of care, not leaving them institutionalised for want of mobility, not leaving them terrified from victimisation and attacks.

    Your ignorance of the issues is blinding. Best not to comment on something you clearly know nothing at all about.

    • May 12, 2011 at 9:04 am

      *sigh*

      Have you learned nothing, Sue, from the shrieking hyperbole of the left’s usual protests against these dreadful ‘cuts’? Exaggeration and painting your opponents as heartless monsters, instead of real people doing their best to cope with a huge deficit bequeathed to them by the last government, just causes people to switch off. Even people who are naturally inclined to be sympathetic.

    • May 12, 2011 at 9:26 am

      Save the sanctimony please I am not even slightly impressed. I have looked after someone who was genuinely disabled and gave up several years of working to do so unpaid and understand the difficulty of getting help when it is needed. Incidentally in 5 years of blogging this is the 1st time I’ve mentioned this because I tend not to wallow in self pity and try to win arguments by saying “Look how much I suffer” unlike you.

      I also know several perfectly able people in their 20s who are perfectly healthy except for some vague “depression” which never seems to effect them when they are out on the town every weekend. They rake in a fair bit.

    • May 12, 2011 at 10:42 am

      Working in bars for years showed me a nice picture of disability.
      Alcoholics receiving more benefits than I earned and spending all day in the pub getting pissed.

      No one is suggesting that the genuinely disable should be left sitting in a pile of their own shit. What does need to be done is those who can work and those with self inflicted problems should be taken off benefits.

      If that leaves some alcoholics wallowing in their own shit rather than living the high life on our dime, fine, I won’t shed a tear.

  4. windsock
    May 12, 2011 at 9:14 am

    I love the way you sneer “They can’t be that disabled then.” and link to a picture of a man in a wheelchair. What a poorly informed (and written) spit of bile Ross’ post is.

    DLA is not the same as IB/ESA; you can get DLA and still work and you don’t get counted into “not economically productive” figures. IB/ESA is not about disability, it is about illness (NOT the same thing) and was introduced by Conservative Ted Heath’s government in 1971 for those unable to work due to illness and amounts are age related. It was modified again by Major in 1995. It is largely based on NI contributions. Are you saying those who have paid into NI should not be insured?

    DLA is meant to facilitate the lives of terminally ill/permanently disabled/ chronically sick people. Maybe you would like to go around and wipe someone’s arse for free?

    While you may have a point about SOME people working the system, what is happening is that the genuine disabled – as YOU would term it – fear the ATOS examinations are being applied indiscriminately, without knowledge, insight, experience or compassion and it’s just luck as to whether you pass the tests or not.

    You won’t win many converts to you Libertarian position with a “Let them eat cake” attitude towards genuine distress.

    • May 12, 2011 at 9:31 am

      More fake outrage. The bit about “They can’t be that disabled then” is quite obviously a joke. Any adult could see that.

      “While you may have a point about SOME people working the system”

      You think?

      • windsock
        May 12, 2011 at 9:42 am

        How do you define fake? How do you know whether I am outraged or just wearily depressed at reading the same old shit again and again?

        First rule of comedy: be funny.

        And really, you can’t be bothered to edit before posting? This needs more than editing – it needs accurate information on which an opinion can be based. Or are your words of wisdom too urgent for that?

        • May 12, 2011 at 9:52 am

          “And really, you can’t be bothered to edit before posting? “

          OK I want you to read carefully as I don’t want to have to explain this again. I did not choose to post it, an admin saw it and pressed post. Otherwise it would have been edited more.

          “How do you define fake? How do you know whether I am outraged or just wearily depressed at reading the same old shit again and again?”

          Disproportionate anger- “spit of bile”- is usually a sign of fake emotion.

          • windsock
            May 12, 2011 at 10:04 am

            OK, you had not made the point clear before about an administrator putting up the post. Criticism of that re-directed away from you and to blog administrators. Shouldn’t they check you have finished it before posting?

            “Spit of bile” is a colourful description for the way I see your post – you might want to learn how to use language creatively if you’re going to blog regularly, and you might be able to make points more effectively and hide your overweening self-importance and condescension.

        • May 12, 2011 at 10:15 am

          “How do you define fake? How do you know whether I am outraged or just wearily depressed at reading the same old shit again and again?”

          I can’t speak for Ross, but I define ‘fake’ pretty much the same way the courts do – you know, all those people with ‘back problems’ that sonehow don’t stop them golfing or skydiving?

          In fact, there’s one in the ‘Mail’ today – incredibly, she was a civil servant SITTING ON DISABILITY PANELS!

          You have to wonder if this is why the DWP says there’s ‘only’ a 0.5% fraud rate…

          • windsock
            May 12, 2011 at 10:23 am

            That is… I don’t have a word. The nearest I can get is just silly. Do you have a link to the article please?

          • May 12, 2011 at 10:47 am
          • windsock
            May 12, 2011 at 11:03 am

            Thank you Julia.

  5. May 12, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Hmmm, I hadn’t actually finished editing that post. Not complaining, just saying.

    • May 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm

      Not being around at the time, I don’t know precisely what happened. However, usually, if something has been saved to draft, we understand it to be ready to go into the queue.

      What some folk do is put a warning in the title that the post isn’t ready.

      If this is a big problem for people, we might have to rethink how we do this.

      I am always open to suggestions on how we can improve things for you.

      • May 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm

        I noticed it’d been scheduled for posting with no title when I was checking in yesterday, and let Ross know with a comment on his site, having completely forgotten that I had his email address… 😳

      • May 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm

        It’s not the system, it’s just me getting used to group blogging.

        Julia- I check my email about 3 times a decade. So the approach you took was the right one.

        • May 12, 2011 at 4:12 pm

          Okay, that’s fine. It’s all a bit new to us as well, so glitches will happen from time to time, I guess.

          Also, Julia was thrown in at the deep end covering for me while I was away.

          • May 12, 2011 at 6:00 pm

            It was no problem, actually. The software was remarkably easy to handle, even for someone who’d never used it before. 🙂

      • May 17, 2011 at 9:57 am

        We asked people, in the blurb we sent out, to write the post first in Word or whatever and then, when it hit the queue, it was ready to go, unless of course the author puts NOT TO PUBLISH or similar in the title.

        It’s best not to do all that much editing inline because that facility is being used by anyone putting in a post.

        Sorry you were caught short, Ross.

    • May 17, 2011 at 9:54 am

      You need to be quick at this place, Ross. 😉

  6. May 12, 2011 at 9:28 am

    I’m disabled. I have MS. What is this register of which you speak?

    • May 12, 2011 at 9:34 am

      If I had finished editing my post before it was posted I would have said something like officially disabled. Basically I mean anyone recognised as disabled by the DWP for the purposes of receiving DLA or other benefits.

  7. May 12, 2011 at 10:45 am

    Ah but lots of people get DLA for being fat. Now I don’t want to mock the afflicted but a disability is something that won’t go away if I pay attention to the laws of thermodynamics and eat less and exercise more. Nothing I can actually do will alter the fact that for reasons known only to itself, my immune system appears to be eating my brain. That is a disability. Fat is a lifestyle issue in almost (note, not all) cases. And yet still they come…

    So there is no official definition of disability and even legislation on discrimination is grimly woolly on the matter.

  8. ubermouth
    May 13, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Re Shaun’s comments….

    A ‘disability’ is not defined by how one came by it or how long it is anticipated the sufferer will be immobilized by it-and shouldn’t be.

    You claim people get disability benefits for ‘being fat’ yet, assuming that you are not being facetious, obesity is a serious medical condition which leads to all sorts of severe obesity related illnesses/diseases. If therefore someone develops such a life altering condition- say heart disease,diabetes, you pick- do we say,’ bugger you, THAT is a lifestyle choice, now get to work?’ By that point, the cause of the disability is irrelevant.

    Regarding discussion on people dismissing depression as some non- medically recognized lame excuse for benefits-clearly they know nothing about depressive type illnesses.

    • May 17, 2011 at 8:37 am

      Actually ubermouth, your point is a tad moot.

      My observation is that a disability is something that will not go away if you change your lifestyle a little. Obesity, and this is NHS guidelines backed by the medical profession, is a lifestyle condition which can be addressed by acknowledging the laws of thermodynamics and putting less energy (food) in while doing more work (exercise) to take more energy out. With the best will in the world, you can see, therefore how that ‘disability’ can be removed. Now, would you like to tell me how you could remove a disability caused by neural de-myleination or cerebral palsy or a catastrophic spinal injury? Because I can’t see one.

      So while being fat can be disabling, ultimately it is a non-permanent, fixable condition that is largely (no pun intended) within the gift of the sufferer to address by eating less and doing more. And that is the official medical position.

Comments are closed.