DLA should not be given to people with disabilities

Take comfort in the fact that alcoholism is rife in journalism, and the author’s words may have to be eaten at some stage.

That’s piss-poor journalism as well. I know at least one journo who would rip that to shreds in a minute (she works for a local paper).

Thousands of pot-smoking psychotics lining up to claim DLA?

Disability Living is a tax-free benefit for children and adults who need help with personal care or have walking difficulties because they are physically or mentally disabled. Setting aside the question of if a disability qualifies as an illness.

You may get Disability Living Allowance if:
• you have a physical or mental disability, or both
• your disability is severe enough for you to need help caring for yourself or you have walking difficulties, or both
• you are under 65 when you claim

As I understand it DLA is there to compensate you for the extra cost incurred due to a physical or mental disability. Without trying to sound like a MoS reader I think it fair to say that DLA has been widely abused as an extra income and source of free money by many with a psychiatric diagnosis, patients who are otherwise physically fit and able to look after them selves. In the past I have supported claims for DLA from patients where I have struggled to identify any extra costs they were incurring because of their illness compared with someone who was just unemployed. One patient I knew of was in receipt of over £400/ week by the time you added in DLA, housing benefit, attendance allowance, council tax rebate etc etc. The government has been happy to turn a blind eye to this in the past because it has wanted to move people off the unemployment register and record them as long term sick. But as social security now counts as much as a ¼ of GDP they are trying to claw some of this back and as usual their efforts are having an impact on the genuinely disabled.

I don’t understand how people manage to claim DLA so easily. I have M.E, which at times has been very bad, but I have tried to claim DLA and failed. Mr Man was unbelievably ill when we first claimed for him, being suicidal and neglecting the need to eat or drink, and yet he was refused DLA and we had to appeal. Even then he was only given lower or middle rate care (I can’t remember which) even though he needed 24 hour care.

On the subject of alcoholics and drug users being malingerers - my brother is an alcoholic, and takes drugs, but he holds down a full time job. Despite paying his taxes he’s not receiving the professional help that he has asked for and so obviously needs.

So, MoS journalist - stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

I`m sick of lefties suppressing debate. If the welfare budget is £169,000,000,000 it should be monitored closely. If the number of DLA claimants is rising dramatically it should be questioned. E isn`t the only one with plenty of actual and anecdotal evidence of widespread abuse. It is patently bloody obvious that the tap dancing scouser, the strongest man in Cornwall and the linesman Mayor will be caught scrounging before the paranoid, doped up malingerer but if you don`t believe they`re out there, in good numbers, then you`re 12,000 miles away in more than a geographical sense.

While I`m at it, I appreciate you live in a penal colony but you should be able to differentiate between drug misuse and eating takeaways. Drug misuse is ILLEGAL, closely associated with people trafficing, gun running, prostitution and the like and contributes a minimal amount to the treasury. Rightly or wrongly alcohol, tobacco and chicken tikka masala are legal in this country and fill the Chancellor`s boots. Casually grouping them all together is not acceptable.

I hope the MoS keeps up the good work

I’m not saying there aren’t any alcoholics or drug users who are lazy and wrongfully claiming DLA, but I agree with Mr Ian that they can’t all be tarred with the same brush.

There are a lot of people getting DLA that shouldn’t be, but there are equally a lot of people who struggle to get it when they should. It just makes me wonder how on this earth people who are not ill manage to claim it. Maybe the lazy/greedy so-and-so’s should get a job with the benefits agency and help genuinely sick people to fill in their forms.

“In the past I have supported claims for DLA from patients where I have struggled to identify any extra costs they were incurring because of their illness compared with someone who was just unemployed.”

The amount of people I have met in the “Mental Health Services” who are desperate to believe that they are suffering an experience of life akin to depression/anxiety diagnosis is incredible.

The reason why DLA claims are going up is because rates of Mental Health suffering is going through the roof.

From personal experience of it, I can promise you you won’t be taking that flight 3 times a year, or driving your car, or be able to process your own bills for half the week.

My cognition skills are amazing when I’m manic them I’m suicidal on the downward peek, yet everyone says I look fine, I’m enigmatic.

Great. I’m a perfect setup for the ones who think they know for simply looking.

Look at the Anti-Stigma campaigning, it states that no-one is immune, it states that you can’t identify just for looking. It even states as to how unscientific Psychiatry has become and how it demeans any experience you are having into simple tickbox columns.

We’ve got to get past this “soldier” idea, that if you’re not a soldier, if you have suffered a breakdown or depression that you must look like something from “one flew over the cuckoo’s nest” or are simply “week and lazy”.

“there’s nothing wrong with you if we can’t see it…”

Just wait till you try Mind housing too. one right next to an unmanned teenage refuge…

Christ you people aren’t paying any attention at all are you?

Um, have these people any idea how difficult it is to claim DLA?

I have Bipolar Disorder and BPD. These are long standing problems dating back some thirteen years (I’m 29). I’ve had five hospitalisations, nine months in total. I spent a year in a supported hostel run by Mind. I have had respite stays adding up to months. I have been on every type of psychatric drug you can think of. I have had a course of ECT whilst in hospital.

(Incidentally I do not feel sorry for myself and am not about to sell my life story to Take A Break anytime soon).

Despite clearly being ill, it took nine months and a tribunal with legal representation before I was awarded DLA, which I have been in reciept of for four years now. The DLA claims system is set up in such a way as to obscure, from the DWP’s point of view at least, the professional’s viewpoint on the claimant’s illness and care needs. They do not want to give you money. I find the idea that one can claim DLA without any input from doctors and mental health professionals to be utterly risible, in my experience. I had to fight every inch of the way.

And yes, I do have care needs, despite being physically able, intelligent and articulate. I have to be physically removed from bed many mornings. I neglect my personal hygiene and have to be prompted to take medication regularly despite being in favour of taking medication. I am frequently a danger to myself. Trying to live a normal life is a constant battle. Luckily, I do recieve the care I need.

And then, I get people saying “You’re on the phone to me now…surely you could work in a call centre?”

Daily Mail (or rather, the Mail on Sunday).. what a surprise.. I saw the article and had to close the web page quickly before I began growling and causing concern in the household… I know I shouldn’t read the Mail (the website, I hasten to add - I can’t spend money on the paper) but it’s like looking at a car crash and sometimes I have to just go and take a peek to satisfy some kind of morbid curiousity before running back to the safe and comforting arms of The Guardian.. seriously though, as others have mentioned, DLA is not an ‘easy’ benefit to get. Articles like this don’t help the vast majority of legitimate claimants and it helps to create more of an us-and-them culture.
And I agree that it serves no purpose to classify ‘drug-takers and alcoholics’ as entities that exist independently of the causes of those behaviours.

So you`re a nurse not a judge, Mr Ian ?. I suppose that absolves you of any responsibility to intervene if you knew of a 3 year old being systematically abused or a 15 year old being repeatedly beaten. You`re a subject of Her Majesty and as an individual and as a professional you have a duty to uphold the law. Full stop.

Of course some people turn to substances as a way of coping with psychological trauma but for many it`s a lifestyle choice. I suspect there are rather too many social workers who fall into the trap of concluding that everyone`s a victim and many gain access to benefits with their assistance. Those who make unfortunate lifestyle choices should pull their fingers out and make an alternative choice. They shouldn`t get state subsidy to do it.

“Them and us” issues and how difficult it is to access DLA are, quite obviously, important matters but they are of no relevance here. Welfare abuse has no benefit to the economy or the taxpayer but more importantly it denies resources to the genuinely needy. I am amazed at how readily the genuinely needy become defensive and completely miss this point.

Finally, I read the original article in the MoS. I have recycled it but the link here is, I`m sure, to a truncated more inflammatory version. Rally the Mail.

Oh and I`m not going to even try to pick up on the cannabis v moto x argument. I`ve no a chance of comprehending a mind that could lump the two together.

OSB> I would suggest that the folks who would consider “genuinely deserving” are defensive because this is not the first time they have been attacked on this score.

There is currently a propaganda campaign, instigated by our mutual friend Mr Brown, to cut off the benefits of those seen to be malingering.

You know how this will be implemented don’t you: the govt will set “targets” for each dwp area of numbers of people to deny and the dwp will be under more pressure than ever to deny as many claims as possible.

The mentally ill will get it in the neck, as it’s difficult for the dwp to defend cutting off benefits for someone with, say, cerebral palsy, but no-one gives a crap about all those “nutters” eh. After all don’t we know, depression/bipolar/schizophrenia are not real illnesses, and even if they were they don’t deserve the same rights as normal people anyway.

The chancers will get away with it regardless.

I cannot comprehend how the government can justify persecuting a group of people who are probably the least able to handle the stress of filling out forms in the first place.

If I had been subjected to that after I was discharged from hospital a few months back I would have been promptly re-admitted.

It’s this background that makes me want to hit the journalist as I read the article. I suspect this isn’t your angle, but you must be aware of the current climate.

BTW, I don’t see any debate being suppressed. You’re doing a pretty good job of resisting oppression in that case. However, if you like, I can toss you a copy of the Guardian, or the Morning Star (is that still published?).

Sometimes I wish OH and I still lived in the Netherlands, which seems relatively free of the kind of government intervention that is cocking up the social services here. (insert obligatory cannabis reference here. No-one smokes it over there, other than this bloke we kept seeing around who looked like the guitarist from ZZ Top).

“I cannot comprehend how the government can justify persecuting a group of people who are probably the least able to handle the stress of filling out forms in the first place.”

Amen.

WHAT THE FUCK ??? “canabis is illegal merely ( FUCKIN` MERELY ) because the law says it is”. As I understood it you`re argument with Ted revolved around your assertion that social control is a) necessary and unavoidable b) has to be accepted if it is the democratic will of the people. Now you have stood on your head and said that laws only have to be adhered to if there is an element of hideous immorality. As it happens I`m not rabidly against the legalisation of illicit dugs. I`m also disappointed with the way democracy is working at the moment. But that is totally irrelevant. In terms of the law my personal opinion is of no consequence until election day. I have to bow to the democratic will of the people and adhere to the laws of the land. And so do fuckin` you.

And next time your flying Qantas round the globe I hope you`re given the option of a pilot who enjoys moto x and a pothead. You may be ambivalent but perhaps you need to consider your fellow passengers.

DeeDee, your argument makes no sense to me whatsoever. The welfare budget, I repeat, is £169,000,000,000. It has to be managed. It is by no means exclusive to health but time and time again the government squander huge budgets. You are absolutely right Mr. Brown and his cronies ( who are taking these steps because they`re skint and not because it`s the right thing to do ) will do this in a cack handed way. BUT

a) that does not detract, in any way, from the basic fact that this budget needs careful management.
b) I`ve never voted for Nu Labour so I`m at a complete loss as to why you would use their incompetence as an argument against me.

Z once said that he would rather see ten unworthy claimants receive benefit than one more than worthy claimant be denied. To my mind that was just about the most moronic utterance ever on this site. Two wrongs don`t make a right so I`m completely baffled as to why ten might. I`m, frankly, staggered by the number of people who seem seduced by that argument. All that the MoS is asking for, all that I`m asking for, is a system that`s fair to the needy and secondly fair to the taxpayer. As far as I`m concerned the current system is unfair on the needy and barely recognises that there is such a thing as a bloody taxpayer.

You’re mistaken OSB. I am not arguing “against” you.

You asked why people on this site who you would consider deserving of benefits got defensive and posted vehement comments although you felt you had not attacked them.

I pointed out why they currently have reason to be defensive - the current dwp fun and games. The article posted on the MoS did not appear in a vacuum, it was not a one-off.

Given the way the govt is going about it, and likely to, the current media and govt focus on kicking the disabled off benefits and making the public accept it by painting all claimants as undeserving really worries me because I think it is going to cause untold suffering to those who least deserve it and can least deal with it.

I wasn’t attacking you: I have no doubt that you, personally, would never condone removing benefits from someone who really needed them (and I’m not being sarcastic, you don’t strike me as being an arsehole, but as someone who actually does stuff to help people) and I also agree that the budget needs careful managing.

It’s just that the current media spotlight on disability benefits, engineered by HM Govt, has nothing whatsoever to do with careful but compassionate management of the available dosh.

I could do a fisking of the article itself in terms of journalistic standards - local papers across the country wouldn’t accept that kind of tripe from their staffers - but perhaps Op/Ed doesn’t get the same scrutiny. Also, I’m pretty damn sure the author of the article is well capable of writing a good, well-researched article when required, but failed to turn in something of the appropriate standard in this case. I award him a D-, “must try harder”.

ps OSB> the Netherlands. A vast, well-organised, world-beating carefully-managed welfare system and legal marijuana - so you and Mr Ian can visit a “coffee shop” and Moto X rally to see which is more interesting without falling foul of the law.

However, for something really Dutch, try “Waadlopen”, literally, “mud walking” (nature treks through mud flats on the North coast).

DeeDee, We need some perspective here. Upon coming to power Blair realised welfare reform was essential. He tasked Frank Field with “thinking the unthinkable”. Good old Frank ( a leftie I admire ) thought the unthinkable. Severely physically disabled people - who would never in a month of Sundays have had their entitlement reduced - chained themselves to the gates of number 10. Blair bottled it and threw the project on the backburner. In the intervening years the welfare budget has soared, as has the number of claimants. No one has gripped the problem.

On another thread currently there is a lot of wittering about the Mezey inquiry. Most contributors are mising the point by arguing over whether an inquiry is necessary. Of course it`s necessary, the primary problem is that halfwitted NHS managers and greedy lawyers allow and encourage it to rumble on interminably. God knows what it will cost. If we had a swift, decisive inquiry no one would be moaning. No one is gripping the primary problem and everyone is getting absorbed into secondary ones.

There are numerous other examples and people, not just me, not just Mail readers, are getting fed up with this waste of taxpayers money. The more annoyed they become the more inflammatory newspaper articles will become. Tolerance will erode. It`s already happening, the BNP beat the Labour Party in the Henley by-election. We have the potential for “untold suffering” like you never imagined.

Mr Ian, your argument is all over the place. Clozapine and olanzapine are highly unpleasant ( I have flirted with the anti-psychiatrists for longer than anyone on this site ) but that is an argument for pressurising Big Pharma into developing more efficacious, less harmful alternatives. It CANNOT, in any way be used as an argument for promoting cannabis.

I don`t drink very much, I`ve never smoked and I seldom use a takeaway. It galls me to have to defend these industries. Conversely, I love the mountains, enjoy mountain biking, cycle to work and had a long, if not overly successful, rugby career. A number of junior doctors have had the dubious pleasure of practicing their stitching skills on me but I`ve never broke a bone. Your risk arguments are just bizarre to me. Sure some smokers will limp on with emphysema but a good number too will be diagnosed with aggressive lung cancer and be planted a matter of months later. Smokers contribute, albeit somewhat begrudgingly, large sums to the exchequer. Potheads DON`T. Smoking is legal, cannabis misuse isn`t.

Don`t know much about moto x or the WRC. I do know Colin McRae died in a helicopter crash. I suppose you`ll be cautioning people against flying next. I`m surprised you ever completed your own personal risk assessment to get beyond Kent.

beakie in “agreeing with OSB” shocker!