benefits claimants are scum...

LydiaJ

PasturesNew wrote: »

There used to be a blind man up the road from me where I used to live. He was always out and about, on buses... reading his braille paper. He knew when to get off the bus OK, I used to get off at the same stop and would see him walking down the road with his little stick.

Certainly very mobile, just couldn't see around him.

But this guy can't read Braille yet, and can't find his way round with a stick. He doesn't know where to get off the bus either. People who've been blind for some time acquire skills like Braille that enable them to do all sorts of things that a previous sighted person can't do when suddenly blinded. People who go blind gradually for medical reasons also have time to adapt.

Perhaps it would be fairer if sudden blindness got you a higher mobility rate for the first year or something, to recognise that you wouldn't have had time to learn to cope. However, that sounds like a recipe for endless arguments about what constitutes sudden, and how badly visually impaired you have to be to qualify, etc, so it probably wouldn't be a good idea overall.

This guy is getting a full police salary and a higher rate care allowance, and will probably get compensation too, so he'll be OK once he's adjusted. However, compensation and things like that can take ages and ages to claim. He won't have got it yet, and in the meantime I expect he's finding his finances rather tight, with lots of extra expenses and not a great deal of extra money. I wouldn't want to criticise him for whinging - it's only been a little over 2 months, and his emotions must be all over the place still, so I'd rather overlook the complaining and admire him for wanting to continue working as a copper.

If he's determined to go back to work, then he sounds like the sort of person who'll learn to get around on the bus as soon as he can. I imagine he'd be a good candidate for a guide dog - how much dog food can you get for £18.95 a week?

LydiaJ

Blacklight wrote: »

No, your quoting things totally out of context has gone way over my head. Sorry I haven't a clue what you're driving at.

I think the problem is that when you type something like "workshy benefit scrounging scum" what you mean is "those benefit claimants who could perfectly well work but choose not to, as opposed to the genuinely deserving cases". However, other people reading your posts assume that what you mean is "benefit claimants in general, all of whom are workshy scum". Thus you think you are typing something that you consider fair, and other people think you are indiscriminately blasting all benefit claimants.

As far as I'm concerned, I agree that this country's welfare system has developed a huge benefit trap that incentivises deliberately staying out of work, and I think that it's important that that should change. I wouldn't myself ever use the word "scum" to describe people, though.

I especially wouldn't generally blame people for responding to the incentives that the system puts before them. I turned a job down once myself because the salary was so pathetic that it would have cost me more in childcare and transport than I'd have earned. It was nothing to do with loss of benefit - I was married and not claiming benefits at the time. Still, I wouldn't choose to work to make a loss - why would you expect anybody else to, whether they're on benefits or not?

elaina79

Chris2685 wrote: »

No, the article said he wrote it on Twitter. How the hell is he writing on Twitter?

His son types it for him. At least he did when he first joined twitter.

Blacklight

LydiaJ wrote: »

I think the problem is that when you type something like "workshy benefit scrounging scum" what you mean is "those benefit claimants who could perfectly well work but choose not to, as opposed to the genuinely deserving cases". However, other people reading your posts assume that what you mean is "benefit claimants in general, all of whom are workshy scum". Thus you think you are typing something that you consider fair, and other people think you are indiscriminately blasting all benefit claimants.

Point taken Lydia, but if you look at the post I was replying to (read it in context) you'll see it's very apparent who I was reffering to as workshy benefit scrounging scum and I stand by the statement.

We can all play the game of taking other peoples words and twisting them to fit whatever point we want.

Regarding the other quotes LJ cherry picked, I still have no idea what point he was trying to make. Perhaps he don't read too well.

ash28

Apart from a medical retirement pension (dependant on length of service) the policeman will entitled to apply for an injured on duty pension - there are several levels of disability - so several levels of pension. The IOD pension is reduced by any benefits being paid. It is worked out using loss of earning using a police salary as a bench mark. Once the officer reaches 60 it can be reduced by using the ASHE level of earnings as a benchmark- 60 is the police retirement age and from that age you are no longer entitled to be assessed using a police salary. Again at 65 it can be reduced further. Not all forces make the reduction. Northumbria Police do.

I think the IOD pension used to be paid by central government - now it's paid by the police. And some forces will do everything they can to avoid paying - or pay as little as they can.

And it can also be reduced if you receive any cash award for injuries.

The guy is probably trying to cover his bases and get the best deal for himself in the long term.

MissMoneypenny

LydiaJ wrote: »

I especially wouldn't generally blame people for responding to the incentives that the system puts before them. I turned a job down once myself because the salary was so pathetic that it would have cost me more in childcare and transport than I'd have earned. It was nothing to do with loss of benefit - I was married and not claiming benefits at the time.

I think a lot of people can live without their benefit top-ups, but the problem is, once you are given more money every month, you learn to spend it.

A bit like when you move from a house with a smallish kitchen to a house with a large kitchen. You soon fill all those extra cupboards.

MissMoneypenny

ash28 wrote: »

Apart from a medical retirement pension (dependant on length of service) the policeman will entitled to apply for an injured on duty pension - there are several levels of disability - so several levels of pension.

As a guide.
An ex copper I know, went off on the sick for his bad back in his 20s.
He had full pay for several years to see if he would recover. Then he went onto a pension. Now in his early 50s, he receives £1,700 per month from that pension (rising every year). Plus he works full time.

He was only in the police for 5 years and 2 years of that was as a cadet. His bad back has never been assessed and his injury doesn't stop him doing anything he wants to i.e. driving off road in 4 wheel vehicles.

So if someone who has only done 5 years service gets that, this guy will not be short of money. I wouldn't swap money for being blind though.