Channel 4 9pm

schrodie

skintmacflint wrote: »

All it takes is asking around your local area or community to see if anyone needs some occasional help here and there, and working it out from there.

Pray tell us where this Bournville type of community is.

Brassedoff

schrodie wrote: »

Pray tell us where this Bournville type of community is.

Its in 1845 near Birmingham at the time.

schrodie

Brassedoff wrote: »

Its in 1845 near Birmingham at the time.

I don't know where 1845 near Birmingham is do you have a grid reference or a Google Maps reference for where 1845 is?

Brassedoff

In the year 1845, or 1860 (ish)

http://bournvillevillage.com/

Are you being serious, you've never heard of Bournville? Do you not like Chocolate?

margaretclare

Brassedoff wrote: »

In the year 1845, or 1860 (ish)

http://bournvillevillage.com/

Are you being serious, you've never heard of Bournville? Do you not like Chocolate?

The Rowntree family, also Quakers, built a similar village outside York, its name is New Earswick. They were all involved in cocoa/chocolate production because they saw that as 'harmless', as opposed to the booze trade (this was, of course, long before the obesity 'epidemic' could have been foreseen).

schrodie

Brassedoff wrote: »

In the year 1845, or 1860 (ish)

Are you being serious, you've never heard of Bournville? Do you not like Chocolate?

I have heard of the Bournville chocolate although not too keen on it as I think it's plain chocolate and I prefer milk. I still don't know where this 1845 place is though.

skintmacflint

schrodie wrote: »

Pray tell us where this Bournville type of community is.

All over the UK. Try looking up your local council website. It will list every type of support group/charity in your area. Then pick up the phone and enquire if they are looking for any extra help/volunteers. Easy peasy.

~Chameleon~

schrodie wrote: »

I was interested in the difference that 1949 applied between the chap in the wheelchair and the woman claiming sickness benefits.

Presumably by today's standards they would be claiming the same benefits either ESA and/or DLA but it seems according to the 1949 criteria if you were in a wheelchair you were disabled but if your weren't in a wheelchair you were just sick.

Maybe that's because disabled people are often NOT SICK!! It really annoys me when people view the physically disabled as sick or incapable. Many are not and are in fact extremely healthy!!

However, people with ill health ARE SICK!! Big difference!

~Chameleon~

Dunroamin wrote: »

Then perhaps we should question why there are so many people claiming sickness benefits today compared to 1949?

Because there is a far higher incidence of sickness these days thanks to the food industry giants and pharmaceutical companies!

~Chameleon~

liam8282 wrote: »

I think I am missing the point you are trying to get at here.

The scenario which you are describing, where there is no disabled public transport must be a very specific place and must only effect a limited number of people, who cannot use any public transport at all.

Fair enough, if you live in the Scottish Highlands you may struggle with Public Transport, but that would be the same for everybody, disabled or not.

Again, it just sounds like making excuses and arguing for the sake of it to me.

So how about rural communities that have limited bus service and those buses aren't wheelchair friendly? My own village has two buses a week. The neighbouring village at least has an hourly service but only between 7am and 6pm Mon-Sat, no Sunday service. The nearest town is over an hour away by bus. If you work shifts you're stuffed!