existentialist
Tired and unemotional
And TBF, 20 months was probably a tap on the wrist with a feather:the law is not generally given to kindness where threats to set fire to things are concerned.
And TBF, 20 months was probably a tap on the wrist with a feather:the law is not generally given to kindness where threats to set fire to things are concerned.
Online rolling picket of workfare exploiters Sue Ryder - details: http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=2121
The Disability Living Allowance helps more than three million people lead useful lives. It pays for transport and carers, meaning that disabled people can work and lead independent lives.
But the benefit bill has to be cut, and the government plans to take more than half a million claimants off DLA. What will that mean for those who depend on it?
Talking to fellow Paralympians, disabled army veterans and disabled people in work, wheelchair basketball ace Ade Adepitan goes in search of answers, and asks if this hugely ambitious and expensive plan to reassess disabled people has been properly thought through.
Britain on Benefits tonight on Channel 4 - 8.00pm (25/2/2013)
Kat Arnsby @TheBaffer
I have to ask- why can't the guy presenting Britain On Benefits do my job? At desk, full wheelchair access, close to public transport. ? ? ?
Expand
Some people just don't get it
Some people just don't get it
Er, he has a job anyway I think.
Yes, but people still don't get that you can get DLA whilst working. This is one of the things Ade should have been totally clear about and explained to idiots like that tweeter
They're getting hammered from all sides.
Sue Ryder has reviewed its position with regard to the Department for Work and Pensions’ mandatory back-to-work schemes.
Our priority at Sue Ryder is providing hospice and long term care in our Health Centres across the UK. We enable this with volunteers in both Care Centres and in our Retail Shops. Overall we have 10,000 volunteers working alongside our staff to support our service users. Of those 10,000 volunteers fewer than 10% are on Government placements.
Recent online lobbying using strong and emotive language and making misleading claims about our volunteering practices has presented a risk to our critical work. Equally we need to protect our service users, their families, our supporters and Sue Ryder staff and volunteers from any further distress.
Therefore, we have taken the decision to withdraw from the DWP’s mandatory back-to-work schemes. We do this with a heavy heart as our volunteers, including those on placements, regularly tell us how much they have benefited from their time with us and we are immensely grateful to them for their time and dedication. We will undertake a phased withdrawal from the scheme so as not to financially disadvantage any of our volunteers on this type of placement.
View attachment 29449 From the Daily Mail
View attachment 29449 From the Daily Mail
Benefit Justice Summit – 9th March 11am – ULU, Malet Street, London
To book your place email benefitjustice@gmail.com or fill in the form on benefitjustice.wordpress.com
What can you do before 9th March
-Let us know what’s happening in your local area, how cuts are affecting people and what campaigns are building up to oppose the attacks
-Raise awareness of the changes coming in with leafleting and meetings. Let us know if you would like a speaker.
-Organise protests and build local campaigns
Follow the Campaign for Benefit Justice on facebook and twitter:
@benefitjustice
[URL='http://www.facebook.com/benefitjustice[QUOTE]']www.facebook.com/benefitjustice[/URL]
New national organisation forming against benefit cuts and hopefully for positive change, sounds promising, SWP inv, etc, but reports say egos and agendas being left at the door, people and groups maybe realising the utter catasophre millions are facing, I do hope so. My council is forcing everyone, unemployed, disabled to pay 16 pounds a month for council tax.
The belief that families are choosing to live on welfare as a ’lifestyle choice‘ is common.
The ’lifestyle‘ which people living on welfare experience is one with a very low income,
on average less happy, and one with poorer than average health for themselves and their
children. It would appear to be a strange choice to make.
The term “generations of worklessness” deliberately implies laziness,
and suggests an entire family sitting for their whole lives in front of the
television. It is important to note that the statistics for those who have
“never worked” will include people who cannot work due to disability or
caring for a family member, and that any temporary or seasonal work is
ignored in the government’s statistics.
Those few in the “two generations of worklessness” category tend to live in
areas of high unemployment and usually the youngest person of working
age is a recent entrant to the job market, so has not been unemployed for
long.
For example, a family would be counted as two generations of worklessness
if one parent was seriously disabled, the other parent was their long term
carer in temporary employment and their child had just turned 16 but did
not have a college place.
A comfortable story which assigns blame to
those living in poverty has become easy to
believe because it is so widespread and often
repeated. Yet there is danger in comfort. The
typical family in poverty in the UK is not made up
of the feckless, workless scroungers of popular
imagination. More typical is a person in low-paid
work, or a person recently unemployed and soon
to find another low-paid job. More typical is
someone who scrimps and saves and does without
to make sure their family is able to make it to the
end of the week.
The comfortable story of poverty allows the
majority of people to live in comfort and security,
largely unaware of the difficulties that many
others face. It neutralises our response to people
who struggle - not with criminality and anti-social
behaviour, but to cover the essentials of feeding
a family, clothing growing children and heating
homes. The comfortable myths about poverty
allow us to believe that people in poverty are
deserving of their poverty, and that it is neither
our fault nor our problem.
The conversation about poverty has concentrated
on fraud, addiction and a culture of entitlement.
The implication is that if you tackle these faults,
then you tackle poverty. It also suggests that
poverty can be confronted without impacting on
the lives of anyone else – except perhaps reducing
the tax we pay. Politicians and parts of the media
have reinforced this belief and told us what we
want to hear. These myths have been a distraction
from the reality of spending cuts that will
continue to have, a dramatic effect on the living
standards of the most vulnerable in our country.