howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 December 2010
12:5284532the above scheme that allows severely disabled to pay for carers so that they can remain in their own home rather than a care home is being phased out.
it presently costs £359 million to run for the benefit of 21,000 people, it has now been closed to new applicants.
the people presently using this service will have it taken away by 2015.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
14 December 2010
13:1184535Well everyday we keep hearing of new cuts. Its quite alarming to see where some of these cuts are falling. Are they making the country a better place to live for its people...the short answer is NO.
This is the Conservative view of how things should be..ie the Big Society. Its a philosophy. Small Government, Big Society..its the philosophy often mentioned by BarryW and many others on TV etc. But without Big Government as espoused by the Labour administrations for years, you get the loss of the services many depend on. To be quite honest its quite frightening for some to have to go without services they have had for years and years.
Fewer health facilities, more criminals on the streets, fewer policemen to keep us safe in our beds, fewer nurses, fewer home visits, fewer council services, fewer people in jobs...its a blue barrel of laughs!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 December 2010
13:3184541getting back to the independent living fund, cutting it would not save the £359 million, all these people would have to go into care homes whose services are very high.
would be good to know what the actual saving would be, it would have to be very high to warrant taking away people's independence.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
14 December 2010
14:0584546The fact is PaulB this country has become addicted to turning towards government for everything and that is expensive and unhealthy.
We all need to get on with our lives, make provision for ourselves and our families ourselves without thinking 'the government will do something'.
If we fail in this continued economic decline will be inevitable.
We must reduce public expenditure to below 30% of GDP, from 53% of GDP as at present, to compete with the booming economies of the world, mostly in the Far East. The left need to recognise that their big spending nanny statism is the cause of poverty and misery and is not the solution.
14 December 2010
15:0684549Disabled people also want to "get on with their lives" and not depend on the kindness of strangers. For many people - too many - it is not within their power to "make provision" and yes, the government SHOULD "do something". That is the point of government, otherwise, what is the point? It's a bit like saying a parent need not care for their family because they should be able to do it for themselves. True sometimes, but when it isn't true the parent steps in. That is why we elect people -to take care of us, to manage our country, to keep their promises, and to support the people who elect them.
I would rather live in a slightly poorer country economically that values and cherishes people than one that devours its citizens and feeds them to the monetary wolves.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
14 December 2010
16:2084552If Howard's figures are correct no wonder it is being closed down, that is an awful lot of money per person.
Some of the severely disabled would be just as happy and independent in some kind of sheltered housing with all the care and facilities they need. I am thinking of housing like us oldies can move into but with resident care workers. Such a system must be a lot cheaper I would have thought.
I am disabled myself having had polio as a child which left me with a paralized arm, I know how I would feel if that amount of money was being spent on me so I could live on my own but with several carers.
Bern,
Barry, I think we all know we have to reduce expenditure by now there is no need to keep on about it.
As for your last sentence you can not keep blaming the left for the "poverty and misery" that was there under the right as well and sadly I expect it will always be there for some.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 December 2010
16:4884553the people themselves get £.300 per week which they can choose what kind of care they want to spend it on.
this gives them some self respect and control over their lives rather than being told what they must have.
i doubt the savings will amount to much, i just feel great sorrow that people who are "severely disabled" are in the firing line.
14 December 2010
17:0084559Paul,
I really do think it is getting to the time when a hard decision has to be made with regards Barry W's constant propaganda. It is thoroughly demoralising and insulting to read his biased slant on how the state of the nation is developing.
And what of the future I ask?? As more and more people loose there jobs and security as part of the "Big Society" are we going to be subjected to Barry W's constant tirade about how good are the benefits of loosing all those important things.
Surely as with freedom of expression comes responsibility, not constantly turning the knife in people who are probably deeply wounded by what is happenning.
You, Paul as head of the forum have a responsibility for what is placed on the forum. You cope very well when any one gets out of hand, myself included. So now I am calling on you to take steps to curtail Barry W.s constant drip feed of propaganda. Fredom of expression is fine, but there other freedoms in our society and not being constantly harassed by one persons particular point of view is one of them. Barry W's posts have gone beyond the point of humour and are grossly insulting.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
14 December 2010
17:0084560it sounds like a snipe at people who cant defend themselfs.
if as howard says they are given 300 quid a week to administer how they deem fit,but how does this compare to the costs of a care home for those who cant afford to pay the costs in the first place.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
14 December 2010
17:3184566Jimmy - Who the hell do you think you are?
Pathetic.
14 December 2010
17:5584568Barry W,
One thing I am not is a bigotted small minded tory who cant see passed his arse hole!!
It is about time some one brought you down to earth .
Barry I KNOW who I am, can you say the same???
14 December 2010
18:0084569This is my view: I have never found BarryWs posts insulting or offensive. I disagree with a lot of what he says and I agree with some of it. I am delighted to have the opportunity to see what he has to say, along with Jimmy, Howard, Ross, Jan. Jeanne, Colin, all the Barrys, all the Pauls and everyone else on this forum who I value. For me there is a difference between having trenchant and vocal views (even if I seriously disagree) and being offensive, such as denigrating an entire nation or culture without thought, casting a slur on a race or religion without defence, or simply being personally insulting. I am irritated with BarryWs take on the plight of people less able or more vulnerable and I think he is wrong. But I am glad I am able to see and hear his views and challenge them. I have sometimes developed my own views as a result of a conversation or three on here!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 December 2010
18:2084571agree overall there bern, paul is tied up with other things at the moment but i know he would agree with you over what is insulting and offensive.
getting back to the serious issue of the disabled losing out here as part of the cuts i think brian is right, putting them in care homes will cost the taxpayer a lot.
i think this may be a political decision rather than a financial one.
14 December 2010
18:5384589People of all kinds of abilities and needs and aspirations deserve autonomy, a life and control over it. ILF is often the only means of control a person has over their own life and support. Unless there are genuine plans to replace it with something better - not necessarily more money, it isn't as much about the amount as about the fact that it goes to the person direct to spend on the support they choose - it is outrageous and cruel to withdraw it. Even with ILF and other safety nets it is often the case that people with disabilities have to take what they can get in terms of support. My own personal nightmare is being immobile and having to tolerate being pulled about, washed, having personal care from someone who smells of stale smoke or B.O., yaps about pap and expects me to listen, and behaves as if they own the place. I will always remember being in hospital after having one of our babies - fully able bodied and sound of mind, I was sitting up in bed and a nurse charged into my room and slapped me about the face with a cold wet flannel. I believe she was trying to wash me. I was able to tell her in no uncertain terms what I expected her to do with the flannel - but if I had been vulnerable, immobile and dependent, less in touch, I would have been at her mercy. There was no respect, thought, kindness or care. She was not unusual.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
14 December 2010
19:1984604Jimmy - pot calling kettle black there. If we are exchanging honest opinions of each other then this is mine of you: A biggoted small minded backward looking socialist stuck in the outdated attitudes of the 1970's and unable to get to grips with the real world. I would usually prefer to keep such opinions to myself, but since you asked for it.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
14 December 2010
19:2984607this won't happen often so here goes.
jimmy
although i disagree with 99% of what barryw has to say it is good that we have varied views on here.
I have attempted to try to request our barryw to be more careful in his postings as, at the end of the day i want to see as many people as possible posting its great.
i would never want the forum to silence people unless theres good reason.
we as a forum should be able to put viewpoints and not be personally attacked because we follow one party or another.
barryw wont change, and wont ever move away from his rose tinted glasses outlook on life, but as much as i dont agree with most of what he posts, he should have that right to post, and we should also have alternative views on his postings.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Unregistered User
14 December 2010
20:0984622Great WC Fields quote that one Jimmy.
Know any more?
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 December 2010
20:1084623jimmy
please do not ask me why i deleted your post.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
14 December 2010
20:1484626jimmy
you may note that i did post that i disagree with 99% of his postings(barryw)
but theres a real danger of silencing people just because we disagree, and i don't ever support that.
i think most forumites have come to realise where barryw comes from and at times his postings do little to encourage others to post.
paulb has one of those difficult decisions to make encouraging debate, and keeping everyone happy.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
14 December 2010
20:1684628
