OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH!
So you add insults as 'yeast' to enliven discourse.
Seems pointless to me as anyone who has to resort to insults/foul language has already shown themselves to be incapable of reasonable/rational thought.
How have they done so, Dennis?
I ask as it appears to me that you're resorting here to what's known as "the Peter Hitchens defence", where you arbitrarily posit that exhibition of trait
A must
ipso facto reveal an inability or lack of trait
b.
To try and 'claim' that discourse needs any enlivenment by use of such means does belittle your argument somewhat, surely the 'argument' can stand alone without any such addatives?
I haven't made any claim at all that discourse
needs such enlivenment.
If you are incapable of seeing how such postings highlight that then I really do pity you.
Save your pity for someone who cares, Dennis.
There are far too many posters who attack the poster rather than the post on Urban, which seems pointless to the extreme.
As I've made clear, I've attacked you
and your arguments, so you can hardly accuse me of merely relying on the
ad hominem side of the equation.
Your points were noted despite the insults.
How very manful of you.
No answer as to the massive increase in those claiming IB I note..........
Blame it on maggie was one posters answer if I recall.
Whats yours?
There is no "massive increase".
Incapacity Benefit has been around since 1995. Look up the claimant figures yourself (easy to do on the DWP website), and you'll see that a "massive increase" only exists in tabloid discourse, not in reality.
Any 'ramblings' must be in your head as I only posted reasonable points with quite reasonable questions.
"Reasonable points" such as holding your no-armed acquaintance up as an exemplar of what a "disabled person" can do, while appearing to miss the point that many people with disabilities have more than one, and your risible statement that "If you can use a keyboard then someone, somewhere, can use your ability it's up to YOU to help yourself and not rely on others to do it for you"?
Not all IB claimants are capable of working I accept that NEVER STATED OTHERWISE please post anywhere I have posted contrary.
What I have posted is that not all IB claimants are genuine and incapable of working.
A point that I've made myself, over and again. Where we differ is that I've looked into fraud and fraud investigation of Incapacity Benefit (which gets far heavier "policing" than most other benefits), and I know that despite this heavy policing of the benefit, every investigation since the inception of the benefit in 1995 has turned up a less than 1% degree of fraud, even with the swingeing "Benefits Integrity Project" taken into account.
I'm well aware that every maundering twerp and his uncle has an anecdote about someone they know who's "fraudulently" claiming Incapacity Benefit. If that's the case then do your "duty" and report them, rather than carping (this, just to make clear, is aimed at
everyone who
spiels out that line, not just at you, Dennis).
I state 2.6 million claiming IB you say 2.3 million yet in 1979 only 700,000 were in reciept of IB , so somehow an extra 1.5/1,8 million people have become incapable of working .
In 1979
no-one was in receipt of Incapacity Benefit.
700,000
may very well have been in receipt of
Invalidity Benefit but, as you can very easily ascertain with a spot of googling, Invalidity Benefit and Incapacity Benefit were not the same thing, in fact they're not even close in terms of "qualifying" criteria, Incapacity Benefit being
far more difficult to successfully claim.
Oh, by the way, the 2.3 million figure is the answer to your request to know how many Incapacity Benefits claimants there were in 1998 or, as you put it, "...ten years ago", so I'm not "saying" anything, I'm answering a question that
you asked, and answering it with the numbers that the DWP list for 1998.
This sort of makes your ramble (rant? screed of erroneous cant?) about "...an extra 1.5/1,8 million people" who are incapable of working look rather ridiculous, doesn't it, given that your base figure is based on a claimant count for a different benefit, and that you expanded a ten year time frame that
you provided (post #648, if you're interested) to a 29 year time frame based on a mistake about Invalidity Benefit being the same or even similar to Incapacity Benefit.
All I have done is question the numbers.
Based on a false premise.
Posted one example of someone who does work despite disability.
Without acknowledging that one is a rather small sample to extrapolate anything from.
Asked why those on IB would be 'targetted' rather than all those seemingly able bodied people who I see standing outside my local job center.
Reasonable discourse I think you would agree?
Hardly 'ramblings'.
Selective, aren't you?
