Archive

Monthly Archives: April 2016

Here is a link to a published online article about me and my MS published for National MS Awareness Week, 25-30 April 2016

http://standardissuemagazine.com/health/me-and-my-ms/?utm_content=buffer21b73&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

 

Advertisements

Regular readers of my blogs will know, without doubt, of my addiction to social media and how often the posts I read on Facebook and Twitter make me angry and inspire my writing. And today is no exception to the rule. Today it is a post on Facebook that has rattled my cage and made me want to write again.

The thoughtless comment I read this morning was yet another post about ‘benefit scroungers’ and fake disabled people. Someone was going on about all the people who are in receipt of PIP (Personal Independence Payments) and it’s predecessor, Disability Living Allowance, who ‘aren’t really disabled and entitled to it’ are they. The fake disabled person, as far as this poster was concerned, was a woman who volunteers in a local charity shop twice a week who gets PIP and has learning difficulties. The point, as far as the poster was concerned anyway, was that learning difficulties wasn’t a proper disability and that PIP was only for people who couldn’t walk or for blind people wasn’t it? No understanding whatsoever. No attempt, that I could see, of any research being done about the payments, just a declaration that the woman in question was a scrounger and a fraud because there was no special something which gave a clue as to her medical diagnosis. Not only that, but at least two responders had suggested that the OP (original poster) should report the woman to the DWP for fraud, especially as she was volunteering, which meant she could obviously work, so shouldn’t be getting any benefits at all should she.

Why is it that the less clued-up general public seems to think that all disabled people must have some sort of sign or badge which marks them out as having an impairment? Why is there little or no understanding for all the thousands of people who have conditions such as dyslexia and dyspraxia, autism, mental health difficulties, diabetes or epilepsy? How about all the people whose impairments have little or no outward manifestation. What about those of us who do not have an aid such as a white stick, a zimmer frame or a wheelchair that means we’re lying. Some of us have nothing at all that marks us out in a crowd. Someone with learning difficulties may need another person with them when they go out to help them get from A to B safely. Someone with diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in their hands might be able to walk but might not be able to hold a pen or pencil so may need a writing aid. Someone in the earlier stages of Multiple Sclerosis or Motor Neurone Disease may need to use cabs to get around but they can still walk a bit. Just because they have no visible sign of an impairment does not make them any less disabled that someone with a guide dog or a mobility scooter.    

And, where does it say that disabled people can’t volunteer or go out to work? To start with, PIP and DLA are welfare payments made to disabled people to help them with the extra costs their impairments cause. DLA and PIP were designed to help put disabled people onto a level playing field with their non-disabled compatriots. They are not a payments that are based on our diagnoses, they are based on our need for some help with our day to day lives. We don’t all have something that marks us out from the rest, a label which says ‘genuinely disabled’ hanging round our necks. More often than not there is nothing special about us to distinguish us at all.  And this leads on to the second myth my original poster and secondary responders were expounding, that DLA and PIP cannot be paid to disabled people who are in work. The extra costs disabled people can incur don’t go away with the arrival of a pay cheque. Someone who is unable to use public transport and has to catch a cab everywhere they go when they are unemployed is still going to have to call a cab to go places after they get a job. They will not, magically, get better the minute they sign an employment contract. Miracle cures don’t work like that or we would all be out there hammering on the doors of recruitment agencies begging for work.

Genuine disabled people don’t wear badges and there is nothing that says that disabled benefit claimants don’t need a little bit extra from public funds to put them on a level playing field, even if they do work. People who post comments on Social Media really do need to think twice and do a bit of research before they hit the enter key. What, at first glance, may look to be unfair usually isn’t. Disabled People are not money grabbing crooks, we’re just people who are trying to make the best of the difficult situation we have found ourselves in, often through no fault of our own. Disparaging and thoughtless comments and social media posts don’t help. If you’re not sure, do a little research, you may learn something and void hurting someone who has done nothing to hurt you. Most people aren’t crooks and should be treated with consideration, however much some social media users may like to believe they are.  

I am somewhat concerned that disabled people are in the process of shooting themselves in the foot.

Amongst all the comments and posts about David Cameron’s tax affairs and the Panama Papers on social media at present, there are also questions being asked about the fact that the Camerons claimed disability benefits on behalf of  their disabled son whilst he was still alive. The argument seems simple – should the Camerons have claimed Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for Ivan given the fact that they are a very wealthy family and had no need for the money or, was the act of claiming this benefit, fraudulent.

Simple question here, how?

The definition of fraud is wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. In what way was claiming a benefit, that Ivan was perfectly entitled to receive, wrongful or criminal deception?

It wasn’t. Therefore, in no way, can this be considered to be fraud. There might be some validity in a question being asked about the morality of a wealthy family receiving a welfare benefit but there can be no question at all asked about the legality of the claim. The Camerons were perfectly entitled to receive DLA on behalf of Ivan. He was a disabled child, the families of all disabled children were entitled to claim DLA on their behalf so the Camerons were entitled to the money they received.

I have no issue with that whatsoever.

Moreover, what they did with that money was their business and not ours. Did they spend it on Ivan or did it go straight into the family coffers? We don’t know. It could be argued that the money should have been put aside, into a trust or bank account for Ivan for when he was older, but again, why? We have no right to ask that question. If the Camerons were a poorer family, living on benefits, in social housing, needing to use a foodbank,  would we be saying the same thing?

Let’s be honest here. No we wouldn’t..

And that is tthe issue and the nub of my point. The Camerons received DLA on  Ivan’s behalf because he was disabled, not because of the amount of money the family did or did not have.

DLA – is a non-means tested benefit which is paid to a disabled person to compensate them, in part, for the extra costs they will experience because of their impairment and, in the case of disabled child, to help the parents with those extra costs. For some people and families it is more necessary to have this money than it is for others but everyone who is disabled is entitled to receive the money. Rich and poor alike.

Asking if David Cameron defrauded the benefits system by claiming DLA for his son is wrong. How could he have defrauded the system if his disabled son was receiving money, that every disabled person is entitled to receive, because of his impairment. We need to be so careful here, it almost sounds like we are asking for DLA and, nowadays, its successor, PIP, to be means tested. If we are asking if it was wrong for the Camerons to have received DLA for Ivan because they are a super-wealthy family, are we also saying that everyone who receives PIP or DLA, but also has income from another source, should not receive anything either? Are we saying that that is wrong too? We need to be very careful we don’t start, however inadvertently, saying that DLA/PIP should be means tested by questioning if David Cameron had a genuine need for Ivan’s DLA. You could argue, effectively, that of course he didn’t, but Ivan was still entitled to that money. If he were still alive, would we all be saying he should not receive DLA because his family is rich? I would hope not, because, if we did say that, we would be arguing in favour of means testing for PIP and I don’t think any of us want that. After all, does a disabled person who receives DLA/PIP, and who also works in a well paid job, have a genuine need for the benefit? Depending on how much they earn they almost certainly have enough for everything they need without any State help whatsoever but why should they? A disabled person does not ask for their impairment so, should they be penalised because of it? Of course not. Yet, by saying that David Cameron was claiming DLA fraudulently on Ivan’s behalf, that is exactly what we are doing.

Whatever else we think of him, his Party and his politics we must not allow this to colour our views by saying one rule for him and another for everyone else. His family’s tax affairs may be questionable in the extreme but there is no doubt that Ivan was a disabled person and that, as such, his family was therefore fully entitled to claim benefits on his behalf. The money received by the Camerons, however distasteful we find it that they got anything at all given their wealth, was not claimed fraudulently and we are only doing ourselves a disservice if we say anything else.