Getting abuse for "pretending to be disabled"

Dexters_Indignation

I will probably get slated for this but here goes.

If these 2 chaps are intent on causing problems for you and they seem to relish picking on the vulnerable they will not stop until forced to do so.

There are 2 options to deal with this.

1. Report this to the police, there is specific legislation that will mean the police have to act on these hate crimes. Having said this, I suspect that the police will do everything in there power not to bother! In fact there laziness in such matters is beyond belief (Really, I would not even bother trying to explain what I once witnessed and the attiude of the police as no one would believe it.

2. Wait outside the local probation office, violent pub or a local prison. Explain in detail to the passers by what has happened and who the culprits are. They will deal with it in a fair and quick manor.

The latter of the two options has other benefits too.
It won't cost the tax payer one penny! As the justice is being given out the culprits can be advised of this. (We would not wish them to think that you were abusing the state!) I doubt they would ever do it again!


This advice may be a joke?

dktreesea

ohreally wrote: »

How would this recognise and take into account those disabled individuals who work?

Brassedoff wrote: »

Why should I lose my disability payments because I can be bothered to work? I suffer from a severe chronic disability that requires the equivilant Fentynal at 700mu of morphine and 33 other tablets a day to control. I get carried from my car to home, I go to bed upstairs on all fours. I have six further operations planned in the next 12 months. I could select to sit on my ar5e and claim one of the many problems I have, crumbling spine, total inconvenience, cancer of the bladder, permenant sciatica and now a stroke! So. If I can drag myself to work, why should I lose the little benefit that pays for the adaptation of my vehicle for the wheelchair.

Not saying other could do some sort of job, after all they might feel they are not able to do anything, oh, btw, I forgot, I cannot cook and feed myself or wipe my bum, could others do SOME sort of work?

DLA, is a in work benefit.

Your question really says it all, doesn't it. You can be bothered to work. In spite of your disability, you earn a living. Your DLA is used in a very specific way, to enable you to function in the working world.

But the question still remains. Why should the disabled, even those who work, get a financial advantage over those who are not disabled? Not everyone who receives DLA gets a financial advantage. Their payment is to keep them level with the rest of the working world, to ensure they are not out of pocket more than the non disabled due to their decision to work. That's probably your situation. DLA that is used in the working world to level the playing field is not the kind of disability payment that is under threat.

At the same time, there are any number of disabled people who also get DLA but don't actually have any out of pocket expenses as a result of their disability. Or worse than that, the extra money they get enables them to remain disabled, to do nothing to improve their condition.

I have a condition which requires physiotherapy from time to time. Provided free, because I need it - the NHS working just like it is supposed to. In the last few years I have been encouraged on two occasions by the NHS to claim DLA. Why? Because they say I am entitled to it. How is it that a condition which occurs either for hereditary reasons, or as normal wear and tear on the body or both, creates a "proceed to Go and collect your £200" moment? It doesn't cost me anything - it's just life. And it already costs the taxpayer plenty, because of the support the NHS provides. Should the taxpayer really be asked to stump up a further £70 a week because I get driven around because it hurts to use a manual gearshift? Or how about a motability car so that I can have a free automatic car, because I am "entitled" to it, even though I work and could afford to buy my own but choose not to?

dktreesea

Brassedoff wrote: »

Then you have the right wing press who run stories like this where in a small town such as Blaenau Gwent, 1 in 6 claim a mental illness. whereas the actual illnesses don't affect anywhere ten times that amount as a proportion of society. This bring those with no connection to claiming, or being involved with any illnesses to jump to the conclusion that claiming depression is the route to an extra £500 a month in disability related benefits. These reforms are no different to the ones needed in other areas of the "big" government we have where the majority of this country expect it to do almost everything for them.

While I appreciate that it is both hard to work when you are depressed and hard for other people to work with depressed people, I just don't see how paying an extra £500 a month to someone who is depressed helps them to overcome that depression. Quite the opposite - their depression is a money earner for them, so they are incentivised to maintain their condition. This kind of condition, where people receive money instead of getting the help they need to learn how to cope with and perhaps even overcome their depression, is a good example of how the DLA doesn't work. We should be providing people with decent treatment, not leaving them to wallow in their condition.

CKhalvashi

dktreesea wrote: »

While I appreciate that it is both hard to work when you are depressed and hard for other people to work with depressed people, I just don't see how paying an extra £500 a month to someone who is depressed helps them to overcome that depression. Quite the opposite - their depression is a money earner for them, so they are incentivised to maintain their condition. This kind of condition, where people receive money instead of getting the help they need to learn how to cope with and perhaps even overcome their depression, is a good example of how the DLA doesn't work. We should be providing people with decent treatment, not leaving them to wallow in their condition.

I think that this is a very unfair comment.

I suffer from lower back/left leg problems, as well as depression, and for the physical issues, the difference goes to keeping me in an Automatic car (yes, you have to pay extra for the gearbox). I get a mobility component of DLA.

On the depression side to this, my work is more of a 'money spinner' (as you call it, I don't agree), to any form of state benefits. I work in the music industry, and often feel that songwriting at 4am is more worthwhile than any form of medication, or sitting around. At least 3 of the songs I've written in this way, went on to sell copies in the 7 figures, one of which written as recently as October last year.

There are, however, those suffering from depression that don't claim any form of state benefit, and do go out to work each day, doing something that they enjoy doing, that's not creatively-related (I have a friend suffering from depression who's a specialist doctor, for example)

Please don't believe everything in the Daily Mail, as there were no figures to state that 1 in 6 are claiming any form of benefit, just that this number is possibly depressed, and is having this controlled by medication.

Where does your £500 per month come from? This is the rate of highest components in DLA combined, and also ESA and some form of other payment combined. Please look up 3 paragraphs, and read the next two.

My DLA is £1092 this year, and I will pay IRO £400k in tax for 2013/14, so show me how I'm claiming the amount you mention.

CK

CTcelt1988

dktreesea wrote: »

Your question really says it all, doesn't it. You can be bothered to work. In spite of your disability, you earn a living. Your DLA is used in a very specific way, to enable you to function in the working world.

But the question still remains. Why should the disabled, even those who work, get a financial advantage over those who are not disabled? Not everyone who receives DLA gets a financial advantage. Their payment is to keep them level with the rest of the working world, to ensure they are not out of pocket more than the non disabled due to their decision to work. That's probably your situation. DLA that is used in the working world to level the playing field is not the kind of disability payment that is under threat.

At the same time, there are any number of disabled people who also get DLA but don't actually have any out of pocket expenses as a result of their disability. Or worse than that, the extra money they get enables them to remain disabled, to do nothing to improve their condition.

I have a condition which requires physiotherapy from time to time. Provided free, because I need it - the NHS working just like it is supposed to. In the last few years I have been encouraged on two occasions by the NHS to claim DLA. Why? Because they say I am entitled to it. How is it that a condition which occurs either for hereditary reasons, or as normal wear and tear on the body or both, creates a "proceed to Go and collect your £200" moment? It doesn't cost me anything - it's just life. And it already costs the taxpayer plenty, because of the support the NHS provides. Should the taxpayer really be asked to stump up a further £70 a week because I get driven around because it hurts to use a manual gearshift? Or how about a motability car so that I can have a free automatic car, because I am "entitled" to it, even though I work and could afford to buy my own but choose not to?

Didnt stop David Cameron claiming DLA for his son,even though he was a millionaire.

As for Motability, it is not a 'free' car. It comes off the benefit that money would be normally paid into their bank account. A higher spec car can cost up to £2,000 advance payment, paid for by the customer themselves. Not everyone chooses Motability, some use their DLA to finance a car themselves. Either way, they choose how they spend their DLA money.

prowla

ska_lover wrote: »

They are just ignorant pr1cks OP

There you go - well said!

seven-day-weekend

dktreesea wrote: »

Work places are notorious. If you need anything in the workplace which marks you as different, e.g. a walking aid/special chair/special softwear if suffer from very short sight, even if the management provide you with those things, there is always a disaffected group who make a fuss, insist you are getting favourable treatment, and are on and on behind your back about how unfair it is.

Do the management do anything? They should if they were doing their job correctly, but quite often not only do they not get on top of the bullies, but they start to think that the disabled person is "the problem". They'll say stuff like "where's the proof" if the disabled person reports the bullies.

I have had this the other way round. I used to jobshare with a person who had repetitive strain injury. It was actually very bad, I've never disputed that.

But as we had to share a desk and computer, (because we were there on different days), everything was set up to cater for her disability and was not suitable for me to use.

I did report this to management and said that whilst appreciating that she needed these adjustments, I didn't and it made using the workstation difficult for me.

They gave us a desk and computer each, I'm glad to say.

Just thought this gave an interesting illustration of what it can look like from the other side.

What has happened to the OP is awful. I would just think of them as a pair of bankers and report them to the police.

dktreesea

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

Didnt stop David Cameron claiming DLA for his son,even though he was a millionaire.

As for Motability, it is not a 'free' car. It comes off the benefit that money would be normally paid into their bank account. A higher spec car can cost up to £2,000 advance payment, paid for by the customer themselves. Not everyone chooses Motability, some use their DLA to finance a car themselves. Either way, they choose how they spend their DLA money.

If benefits abuse starts at the highest level of government, then maybe we should all back off and instead encourage everyone to maximise their benefits, whatever they earn, and how ever much they actually financially need the help.

We need to stop thinking that we have to claim things like DLA - and WTC come to that - when we can afford not to, just because we are entitled to it.

dktreesea

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I have had this the other way round. I used to jobshare with a person who had repetitive strain injury. It was actually very bad, I've never disputed that.

But as we had to share a desk and computer, (because we were there on different days), everything was set up to cater for her disability and was not suitable for me to use.

I did report this to management and said that whilst appreciating that she needed these adjustments, I didn't and it made using the workstation difficult for me.

They gave us a desk and computer each, I'm glad to say.

Just thought this gave an interesting illustration of what it can look like from the other side.

What has happened to the OP is awful. I would just think of them as a pair of bankers and report them to the police.

Enlightened management combined with an employee willing to risk standing up and say what they need is a great combination. A lot of people in your shoes wouldn't have said anything, sad to say, because they would have been scared of losing their jobs in the next restructure, or ruining their careers because they had "earned" a label for themselves of not being able to accommodate the needs of disabled people.

Good on you for speaking up. Small acts sometimes have a profound effect, for the good, on the management who have been called upon to act, well into the future. It might make them more aware of everybody's needs and be proactive about filling them in time to come. That can only be a good thing.

dktreesea

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I think that this is a very unfair comment.

I suffer from lower back/left leg problems, as well as depression, and for the physical issues, the difference goes to keeping me in an Automatic car (yes, you have to pay extra for the gearbox). I get a mobility component of DLA.

On the depression side to this, my work is more of a 'money spinner' (as you call it, I don't agree), to any form of state benefits. I work in the music industry, and often feel that songwriting at 4am is more worthwhile than any form of medication, or sitting around. At least 3 of the songs I've written in this way, went on to sell copies in the 7 figures, one of which written as recently as October last year.

There are, however, those suffering from depression that don't claim any form of state benefit, and do go out to work each day, doing something that they enjoy doing, that's not creatively-related (I have a friend suffering from depression who's a specialist doctor, for example)

Please don't believe everything in the Daily Mail, as there were no figures to state that 1 in 6 are claiming any form of benefit, just that this number is possibly depressed, and is having this controlled by medication.

Where does your £500 per month come from? This is the rate of highest components in DLA combined, and also ESA and some form of other payment combined. Please look up 3 paragraphs, and read the next two.

My DLA is £1092 this year, and I will pay IRO £400k in tax for 2013/14, so show me how I'm claiming the amount you mention.

CK

It's unfair being disabled. But, for people who can afford to go without the payment - if your songwriting is good enough to earn 7 figures for the songs you produce, presumably you are good enough to make a living from it? - how is it fair to the taxpayer that they get a financial benefit beyond the direct cost of dealing with their disability?

How is it fair on the disabled person that they get denied timely access to the support they need - like for depressed people, how about access to talking therapy right now, today, when they need it, not in several weeks or months time? - from the NHS and instead get fobbed off with money, which, as you point out, doesn't always work out at £110 a week or so, and could only be £20 a week? If a depressed person needs a therapist £100 a week iis probably not enough for them to go out into the private market and buy what they need, let alone £20 a week.

If everyone who could afford not to claim DLA - and David Cameron, that includes you - went ahead and exercised their rights and claimed it, maybe the welfare bill would go up enough so the government started to do the right thing, and means tested all benefits. There's a few they can look at long before squaring up to the disabled. Like requiring people to live off their own savings before they claim support from other taxpayers.