Re: Motability
 

One of the most hight rated comments from the "discussions" on this article:

Another classic:

This "newspaper" is a national disgrace: it panders to people's innate prejudices and at the same, peddling vacuous celebrity non-stories .. all in the name of journalism

Re: Motability
 

Maybe we could look at the way the cars are used ,is it actually financially viable for the person to use all or most of their mobility allowance on a car when they only need it perhaps once a week .Using taxis or public transport may be more financially efficient for some but given the cost of taxis and the complete and utter failure of bus companies to successfully cater for able bodied people let alone disabled people having a car may be the only viable option for some .Maybe the government should look at public transport as a whole and develop a policy specifically so disabled people can confidently use public transport instead of a car .
Back in 2011 Motability made some changes these included limiting the cars available ,no more BMW's or Audis .They also placed restrictions on the named drivers ,they must live within 5 miles of the customer and only 2 drivers as standard this reduces the risk of relatives using the car for personal use .

Re: Motability
 

Well done these guys in particular (showing as examples)

I could go on.

I don't know how reading the Mail & sitting in KwikFit makes the OP such a fricking expert on DLA/Motability & fraud, when there's people here who clearly are either on it or have relatives on it who just might be a little bit more qualified to speak about it than the trollbait first post.

I think I'm done here, I'm certainly done with people so gullible/bitter/naive? to fall for the bs that things like the D Mail propagate.

I could name plenty of other things that could well do with addressing than 0.5 of ONE percent.

Like circa 12 BILLION pounds/Yr on Foreign aid for a start.

Re: Motability
 

:clap:

Re: Motability
 

so you admit being a reader of this odious rag ,if not what do you base your ideas of its content on .

Re: Motability
 

I'd prefer a welfare system in which fraud is minimised so that those in genuine need receive the benefit. For £70m to go 'missing' is not acceptable to me.

You're a regular reader then?

You're a regular reader then?

Fair enough in the long term. What about the swindling in the shorter term though? Is it only me that thinks £70m is a lot of money?

But you haven't gone on? You've just quoted others; stuff already read.

It's not for me to say but I don't think the mods will be happy with that.

It's not for me to say but the mods might prefer that you stay on topic.

You're a regular reader then?

He's a regular reader, evidently. ;)

Re: Motability
 

isn't it amasing how many regular mail readers condemn its contents but still read it ;)

Re: Motability
 

They probably all have a friend who reads it and tells them about it (in quite a bit of detail it would seem). :)

I wonder if one day we will all be able to discuss things here without aggressive overtones and ad hominem attacks? Where information is provided to correct mistaken opinion rather than full on insult? When difference of opinion can just be accepted?

I suppose it just wouldn't be CF without a dose of irrationality.:sleep:

Re: Motability
 

l don't buy it as l prefer to read a more unbiased less distorted view of the world generally.

Re: Motability
 

i go here http://www.thebigproject.co.uk/news/#.Vzi6jPkrLcv and read all the uk papers

Re: Motability
 

I think at this point I'll just mute the troll, clearly he's got the bit between his teeth about this subject, despite there being many other far more worthy & pertinent ones.
Who know's. Perhaps someone ran over his cat in a Motability car or something.
This isn't a thread or a discussion its the OP posting something that's not even accurate and then arguing vivaciously with anyone who dares to disagree, regardless of the facts or not.

/Muted

Re: Motability
 

The thing with the mail is that with the smallest amount of research the claims it makes can be totally debunked .The journalists either grossly misrepresent the facts or simply lie to get a story .Probably the same with most of the papers these days but the Mail is renowned for it

---------- Post added at 19:16 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------

What do you expect he read it in the Mail

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------

Of course it's a lot of money and fraud does get tackled when it's known about but there is only so much anyone can do because it's human nature to want stuff for free

Re: Motability
 

Kursk i tried to engage you in an adult and polite way and you clearly have no interest in that you want to attack something regardless of the facts and realities so we will now part ways. As for the mail no one has to actually read it to know the utter bilge it prints pick any subject and it's not long before an article from the mail is cited. I have found myself debunking the mail on numerous occasions while being involved in e-cigarette advocacy and how that paper is allowed to publish some of the articles it does in this day and age astounds me. I have never purchased it or any other paper in this country for decades because i always have a good supply of toilet paper and do not need more.

Re: Motability
 

/Muted?....aaahhhh, I never thought that silence might be such music to my ears.

You do realise that your contribution to the thread has been profane, dismissive, sarcastic, repetitive and vacuous and you're calling me a troll?

We all know the accuracy of the press is questionable. But there is no smoke without fire; Government figures show that fraud is significant. I think the situation is likely to become a little more urgent. Despite the superficial calm, there is a financial crisis and 'free stuff' is not something the UK can afford imho.

Yes you did engage and I feel that our exchanges as a sort of sub text in the melee have been worthwhile. I do have an interest in the subject but you seem to be misjudging me by responses made in kind to others who have been less than civil. I am well aware that this is a topic that many get very defensive about; I am also well aware there are recipients of the benefit amongst the forum membership. You would think this would make for ideal conditions to discuss the topic but there you go.

As it is the system is being defrauded of around £70m. I don't know why this loss of funding doesn't seem to overiy concern others especially genuine recipients and I am left to draw conclusion from the information provided in a 'nasty little rag' and from the churlish responses of a few indignant CF contributors. Sigh.

Not sure how reasonable it is to debunk a paper you never read but that's a different discussion. As is Godwin's Law :)

Re: Motability
 

Then why defend the indefensible?

---------- Post added at 08:58 ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 ----------

Repeating this childish retort doesn't help your argument to counter the view, seemingly held by most here, that the Daily Mail is a pernicious and morally bankrupt publication.