MSE News: 'I'm on benefits but I'm no scrounger'

Flyboy152

cosmic-dust wrote: »

Thanks, but I am well aware of the ignore function and how it works on MSE.

The OP made a point of a) viewing the alleged poster's post she has on ignore and b) replying to said poster. Which kind of make this post rather pointless. She was itching for a scrap simple as.

That as maybe, but I somewhat agree with the sentiment.

meher

qetu1357 wrote: »

The fact is if you are really wealthy you can avoid (evade?) tax so (because the cost to avoid is less than the tax you would save) there is no point in over taxing - you just get less.

tax evasion is illegal; avoidance isn't but then source of income through tax avoidance is a form of state benefit whichever way you spin it

The point is we're all in it, we all benefit too but most of us are mindfully aware of a wonderful system and share any allowances equally. Not as if I'm allowed more ISA than the next person. And for that reason I don't understand why some of us are not allowed to have a say in how state revenue is utilised and yet some others allowed to abuse freely those who seek truth, despite their life being made equitable at a cost to others. I suspect many claimats speak from their own sense of inadequacies and/or guilt or so it certainly comes across as such, with whcih I wouldn't mind but does it justify prejudice directed at those who make their chosen lifestyles happen, I would like to think that it doesn't.

anyway thanks for the opportunity to reflect and point out who actually is subject to prejudce - those who want fairness for all, no more to add

looby75

krisskross wrote: »

This is the persecuted martyr attitude I find so infuriating. I am positive that you do not get challenged about your BB on a daily basis. As a non driving family (we have never been able to afford a car) I have no interest whatsoever in who parks where. There are always loads of unused disabled bays in my local car parks....could be because everyone pays I suppose.

Do you however still use your BB to secure preferred probably free parking when you are in remission and as able as any other driver to use a normal parking space?

not every day maybe but quite regularly.

My FIL is in his 70's and has a bb because of knee and breathing problems. He's absolutely fine driving but getting in and out of the car is difficult for him as is walking especially when his chest is bad. Every Thursday I go shopping with him and MIL and because it's easier for him to do shopping in small spurts we visit a variety of shops and he drives between each. It takes forever but it gets him out of the house lol.

He parks in the disabled bays in each carpark when ever he can, and always displays his bb but every week, very offten when someone sees me get out of the back of the car to go and get FIL stick out of the boot so I will get rude comments about how being fat (I am over weight) isn't a disability and to get out of the disabled bay or some other rude comment about not needing to park there. I don't even bother responding now I just smile at them get FIL stick out of the boot and give it to him. Most of the rude people have already gone on their way by then so probably don't even realise I'm not the reason for the bb.

krisskross

looby75 wrote: »

not every day maybe but quite regularly.

My FIL is in his 70's and has a bb because of knee and breathing problems. He's absolutely fine driving but getting in and out of the car is difficult for him as is walking especially when his chest is bad. Every Thursday I go shopping with him and MIL and because it's easier for him to do shopping in small spurts we visit a variety of shops and he drives between each. It takes forever but it gets him out of the house lol.

He parks in the disabled bays in each carpark when ever he can, and always displays his bb but every week, very offten when someone sees me get out of the back of the car to go and get FIL stick out of the boot so I will get rude comments about how being fat (I am over weight) isn't a disability and to get out of the disabled bay or some other rude comment about not needing to park there. I don't even bother responding now I just smile at them get FIL stick out of the boot and give it to him. Most of the rude people have already gone on their way by then so probably don't even realise I'm not the reason for the bb.

My husband has a BB even though neither of us drives. We have found it useful on occasions when he literally cannot walk and is using a wheelchair because his RA has flared up or if his breathing is particularly bad because of his COPD. Obviously it is only used occasionally when a family member takes us out.

However ordinarily it is not used...we wouldn't dream of taking advantage of it when he is little worse than any other older person.

looby75

krisskross wrote: »

My husband has a BB even though neither of us drives. We have found it useful on occasions when he literally cannot walk and is using a wheelchair because his RA has flared up or if his breathing is particularly bad because of his COPD. Obviously it is only used occasionally when a family member takes us out.

However ordinarily it is not used...we wouldn't dream of taking advantage of it when he is little worse than any other older person.

it's not always about how well you can walk, in FIL case most times it's that he finds it very difficult to get in and out of the car, he needs the extra space a disabled parking bay gives so he can open the door to it's fullest extent and then twist his entire body round in his seat so his knees don't need to "twist" then with the help of his stick he can stand up straight. Once he's out of the car walking short distances is ok as long as it's on flat ground.

Every person with a disability has a different problem it's not just a case of "being an old person"

krisskross

looby75 wrote: »

it's not always about how well you can walk, in FIL case most times it's that he finds it very difficult to get in and out of the car, he needs the extra space a disabled parking bay gives so he can open the door to it's fullest extent and then twist his entire body round in his seat so his knees don't need to "twist" then with the help of his stick he can stand up straight. Once he's out of the car walking short distances is ok as long as it's on flat ground.

Every person with a disability has a different problem it's not just a case of "being an old person"

So what you are saying is that he doesn't need a BB and a disabled space as long as there is a gap enabling him to fully open his door.

looby75

krisskross wrote: »

So what you are saying is that he doesn't need a BB and a disabled space as long as there is a gap enabling him to fully open his door.

which in the vast majority of carparks means a disabled space, also as I said in my previous post when his chest is bad (he has coal dust on his lungs from when he worked in the mines) he can only walk short distances and the disabled spaces tend to be closer to the entrance of where ever he needs to be, usually the doctors or hospital when he's that ill.

lanza

I cant believe this thread, post after post of people poring over the calculations from the original article like !!!!!! ?

disrespectful to the guy and shame on you for that reaction. It really says it all about this forum now. First of all there is people actually defend the banks charges by blaming it on the customers now this.

Clearly you can see the delusionary cogs whirring here. Members couldn't find a moral high ground but are primed to blame, deny anything but empathize so resorted to some other form of denial like picking holes in the finances of the article. That says it all about a portion of todays society, hopefully this is just a minority that frequent here, or the other half, ahem sorry i should say the minority that didnt have what it took to win an election, without a co-coalition which tellingly they backstabbed later on.

Would you like your hand to be growing and hanging of like that, then have to go through all that crap ? That was the issue. mad: I remember my mother having to go through similar means testing and degrading treatment when she had cancer in the 1980's. Guess its back to that style of thing in a new form for a while then.

Of course the psychological savvy might be able to figure that many of the people here who post like that ARE emotional and afraid. They CAN empathize, if anything perhaps many may be capable of empathizing so much and are so acutely aware that little separates them from being branded somewhere their humanity is shoved away by anxiety into a little box.

That mindset of figure a way, any way, confabulate if necessary as long as we can say more than nothing and remain actively verbal. Yes that is of course a strategy to ensure our mind can stay active in the game of them and us. Really i just think all this says is that people will confabulate, deny, lie any strategy but lose their public voice. At least its clear on the internet. Text is clear and stays online. you people would be better not logging on at all, but i guess the allure of this forum and the chance of picking up titbits of information to get a leg up and stay abreast of the current state of affairs is too much too resist.

OK i had my say and will be off from the tripe this forum now is. I just hope i never have to meet any of you disgusting people (who did the financial nitpicking in this thread) in real life, but i guess that is unrealistic .

lanza

Actually i wont leave it there. Ill leave this and i will paste abridged it as i dont seriously expect anybody to click the link. As can be seen on this thread and forum the phenomenon where by people deny even more strongly when faced with evidence which contradicts their delusions is indeed strong here. I was going to say at least you are all in one place for psychological testing, but then i dont want to think that i too might not be prone to falling into this mind pit, so i wont.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon

Just-world hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Just-world phenomenon)

The just world hypothesis describes a cognitive bias in which people believe that the world they live in is one in which situations occur as the result of a universal force of desert or justice. This phenomenon has been widely studied by social psychologists since Melvin J. Lerner conducted seminal work on the belief in a just world in the early 1960s.[1] Since that time, research has continued, examining the predictive capacity of the hypothesis in various situations and across cultures, and clarifying and expanding the theoretical understandings of just world beliefs.[2]
Emergence

The phenomenon of belief in a just world has been observed and considered by many philosophers and social theorists. Psychologist Melvin Lerner's work made the just world hypothesis a focus of social psychological research.


Melvin Lerner was prompted to study justice beliefs and the just world hypothesis in the context of social psychological inquiry into negative social and societal interactions.[3] Lerner saw his work as extending Stanley Milgram's work on obedience. He sought to answer the questions of how regimes that cause cruelty and suffering maintain popular support, and how people come to accept social norms and laws that produce misery and suffering.[4]

Lerner's inquiry was influenced by repeatedly witnessing the tendency of observers to blame victims for their suffering. During his clinical training as a psychologist, he observed treatment of mentally ill persons by the health care practitioners with whom he worked. Though he knew them to be kindhearted, educated people, they blamed patients for their own suffering.[5] He also describes his surprise at hearing his students derogate the poor, seemingly oblivious to the structural forces that contribute to poverty.[3] In a study he was doing on rewards, he observed that when one of two men was chosen at random to receive a reward for a task, observers' evaluations were more positive for the man who had been randomly rewarded than for the man who did not receive a reward.[6][7] Existing social psychological theories, including cognitive dissonance, could not fully explain these phenomena.[7] The desire to understand the processes that caused these observed phenomena led Lerner to conduct his first experiments on what is now called the just world hypothesis.

Additional evidence

Following Lerner's first studies, other researchers replicated these findings in other settings in which individuals are victimized. This work, which began in the 1970s and continues today, has investigated how observers react to victims of random calamities, like traffic accidents, as well as rape and domestic violence, illnesses, and poverty.[1] Generally, researchers have found that observers of the suffering of innocent victims tend to both derogate victims and blame victims for their suffering. Thus, observers maintain their belief in a just world by changing their cognitions about the character of victims.[16]

In the early 1970s, social psychologists Zick Rubin and Letitia Anne Peplau developed a measure of belief in a just world.[17] This measure and its revised form published in 1975 allowed for the study of individual differences in just world beliefs.[18] Much of the subsequent research on the just world hypothesis utilized these measurement scales.

Poverty

More recently, researchers have explored how people react to poverty through the lens of the just world hypothesis. High belief in a just world is associated with blaming the poor, and low belief in a just world is associated with identifying external causes of poverty including world economic systems, war, and exploitation.[27][28]

Current research
[edit]
Positive mental health effects

Though much of the initial work on belief in a just world focused on the negative social effects of this belief, other research on belief in a just world suggests that belief in a just world is good, and even necessary, for the mental health of individuals.[42] Belief in a just world is associated with greater life satisfaction and well-being and less depressive affect.[33][43] Researchers are actively exploring reasons that belief in a just world might have these relationships to mental health; it has been suggested that such beliefs could be a personal resource or coping strategy that buffers stress associated with daily life and with traumatic events.[44] This hypothesis suggests that belief in a just world can be understood as a positive illusion.[45]

Correlational studies also showed that beliefs in a just world are correlated with internal locus of control.[18] Strong belief in a just world is associated with greater acceptance of and less dissatisfaction with the negative events in one's life.[44] This may be one pathway through which belief in a just world affects mental health. Others have suggested that this relationship only holds for beliefs in a just world that apply to the self. Beliefs in a just world that apply to others are related instead to negative social phenomena of victim blaming and victim derogation observed in other studies.[46]

dktreesea

What's with the people who are being nippy about other people having a disabled badge? Is this something to aspire to? Hardly! I'm sure people who are disabled with, for instance, arthritis, would swap their disabled badge for straight fingers and a rest from pain any day of the week. And what about people who get a tightness in their chest and can't breathe properly? Have any of the people being nippy about people with disabled badges had that experience? it's definitely not pleasant. In fact it's quite scary expecially if it goes on for a while.