This sort of thing annoys non disabled people

margaretclare

insured wrote: »

Margaret, I have looked at my original post again and I have removed the part of it which refers to your claim as I think it seems too much like a personal attack and I did not want that. Neither did I want the thread to revolve around your entitlement to AA as I think it detracts from something else you said.
I responded to your post because I think a response like "We English" to a post from a person from, or who appears to be from Poland, is racist and bigoted.
This has been a lively and interesting debate, but you are the only person who has brought nationality and race into the discussion and I think it is unecessary.
My friend is Jewish and her husband is very involved in their local synagough. She recently found out that he was having an affair with their son's girlfriend. Obviously I went to see her to offer support, but it would have been quite incorrect of me to start by saying "He is a heel and "we English" think this is wrong". Being English has nothing to do with morality.
In the same way, you starting a reply with "We English" to someone who you thinks is incorrectly claiming benefits is racist.
The historical anyalysis does relate to you when you begin threads like "we English", just like the Daily Mail loves to report on and dwell upon bad behaviour by foreigners, especially Muslims and Eastern Europeans.



You certainly do not say that.
You do not speak for me or a great many intelligent English people when you attack someone in that bigoted way.
I would also point out that not are you the only one who has brought race into this, but you are the only one who has needed to use foul language to make a point. There does seem to be a correlation between intelligence and racism.
I am not going to reply to this again as I think it detracts away from the debate, which is interesting and lively.
Once again, I apologise for the personal attack which I have removed. If you think any more of my comments are personal attacks, I apologise and please let me know and I will remove them.
I do not think my disagreement with what I think are your racist comments are personal attacks, as I am simply disagreeing with you bringing race into this.

As this appears to be 'be nasty to margaretclare day', I must respond to all of this. Not necessarily in any particular order, and thank you for the apology. Referring to events of 4 years ago does not take into account the fact that - as some others have said - nothing is getting any better from the point of view of long-term recovery.

The comment to which you refer above was in response to the one I quoted which said quite openly and unashamedly, that the poster had suffered an accident in his own country and had moved to the UK because benefits were more generous. I would have thought it obvious that many of us - who have paid into the taxes in our own country thinking the result was for the use of our fellow-countrymen - would have objected to this remark, as well as to the following 'Hats off to my fellow-scrounger'. Am I really, really the only person here who finds this - to put it mildly - objectionable and unacceptable?

You also accuse me of using 'foul language'. Where? Foul? This is something I never do, because our English language is so rich and varied that it is never necessary to descend into gutter-talk. I cannot see where I have used 'foul' language.

Your referring to your Jewish friend and her family problems is completely irrelevant. I am the last person to make anti-Jewish comments, having married into a family which is Jewish in origin, although many are no longer Jewish.

I specifically said 'English' because that is what I am. Some of us do have a perception that it is OK to be Scottish, Welsh, Irish or even British, but yes, saying we are English is, in some quarters, immediately labelled as 'racist'.

Put it another way. Suppose there was a country in the world where benefits were more generous than they are here. There may well be - I've no idea! Would I consider moving there to live long-term, just because of that one factor? If I boasted about it quite openly, saying I had moved here from my native land purely for that purpose, and concluding with 'Hats off to my fellow-scrounger?' You really don't object to that kind of talk, but have chosen to turn your fire-power on me?

margaretclare

krisskross wrote: »

Doesn't impaired mobility impinge on other aspects of life leading to care needs? Just a little f'rinstance: My husband has RA which seriously affects his mobility. Because of this he is unsafe to shower when no one is around as he could fall or slip. So he has a care need but if he didn't have the mobility issue he wouldn't have the care need.

I completely agree with this. Krisskross has shown a degree of understanding - no doubt from experience - that others have not shown. DH and I are both unsafe to shower when no one is around. It wouldn't be the first time I've fallen in the shower and not being able to get up unaided. We've learned all this from experience. Being carers for each other often means just being around. It's the reason why we each carry our mobile phone. One dark evening I fell while outside, gave my back a thorough whack on the concrete, didn't have my mobile phone in my pocket and couldn't get up. I ended up inching myself in a sitting position round the corner to the back door and dragging myself to my feet on the doorstep. A lady was reported as having done similar last winter, couldn't get back inside and died of hypothermia.

Errata

Surely the point of AA is that the person receiving it needs frequent several times a day hands on help with bathing rather than having someone on standby once a day?

margaretclare

Errata wrote: »

Surely the point of AA is that the person receiving it needs frequent several times a day hands on help with bathing rather than having someone on standby once a day?

Who bathes 'several times a day'?

Errata

People who need to.

margaretclare

zaksmum wrote: »

How can you POSSIBLY object to Margaretclare's use of a phrase like "We English" and say it's a racist comment? Is the world going mad?:eek:

Yes, it is zaksmum. It's not the first time, or place, that the term 'we English' has been immediately labelled as 'racist'. I know many other people who have had similar experiences. In fact I did not at any stage mention 'race', but this is a common and widespread perception. Someone saying 'we Scottish' etc would not evoke the same response.

Linking me to the historical Blackshirts, the BNP etc is not only offensive but it is inaccurate. The British National Party, as far as I know about them (which isn't a great deal) are - British! I used the word 'English'. Even worse is the accusation that my language was 'foul'.

margaretclare

Errata wrote: »

Surely the point of AA is that the person receiving it needs frequent several times a day hands on help with bathing rather than having someone on standby once a day?

Recently I spoke to someone at the Pensions Service and asked her about the possibility of coming off this if I 'got better'. She opined that someone on AA would be on it permanently because advancing age would mean that no one could 'get better' in the sense that someone much younger possibly could. Increasing muscle weakness is a well-known accompaniment to increasing age. All these things tend to work together and against the likelihood of long-term recovery. In addition, the idea of having a carer for a set number of hours may often mean that the carer simply needs to 'be there just in case'.

clemmatis

margaretclare wrote: »

Who bathes 'several times a day'?

AA is for people who need hands-on help, for care needs, several times a day. Clearly if you qualified for AA, because you had care needs, when you applied, and if when you applied you did not, as you suggested to others and said you had, describe each day as though it were the worst, there is no problem.

How do you spend your AA? On care needs?

But that is not the impression given by the posts to which I linked.

zaksmum

margaretclare wrote: »

Yes, it is zaksmum. It's not the first time, or place, that the term 'we English' has been immediately labelled as 'racist'. I know many other people who have had similar experiences. In fact I did not at any stage mention 'race', but this is a common and widespread perception. Someone saying 'we Scottish' etc would not evoke the same response.

Linking me to the historical Blackshirts, the BNP etc is not only offensive but it is inaccurate. The British National Party, as far as I know about them (which isn't a great deal) are - British! I used the word 'English'. Even worse is the accusation that my language was 'foul'.

Ridiculous! You haven't used any foul language and I can't see the slightest harm in saying "We British"! For God's sake...I don't believe some people.

zaksmum

clemmatis wrote: »

AA is for people who need hands-on help, for care needs, several times a day. Clearly if you qualified for AA, because you had care needs, when you applied, and if when you applied you did not, as you suggested to others and said you had, describe each day as though it were the worst, there is no problem.

How do you spend your AA? On care needs?

But that is not the impression given by the posts to which I linked.

You can qualify for AA even if you live alone and are not actually getting the care you need.