For those of us unfit to work

[denphone]

Originally Posted by New to cable

What makes me laugh is reading on here how some people claim they're unfit to work but then you see them on here 10 hours a day posting comments.

Surely if the DWP looked on this site it would show these people could work as data inputters, or a similar desk based job? Even on a production line that you could work on whilst seated?

Personally I have only had 2 weeks out of work since I left school, but then I am a very motivated person and I always see what I can do , not what I can't.

Have you been in and out of hospital for 11 years and have you had 7 operations including 3 10 to 12 hour ones and have you had to 2 devices implanted no l don,t think so.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by denphone

Have you been in and out of hospital for 11 years and have you had 7 operations including 3 10 to 12 hour ones and have you had to 2 devices implanted no l don,t think so.

The fact he went red the same day he joined would give you an idea about the type of post we see from new to cable

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Sirius

The fact he went red the same day he joined would give you an idea about the type of post we see from new to cable

Yes l have noticed that Sirius.

[dilli-theclaw]

Originally Posted by New to cable

What makes me laugh is reading on here how some people claim they're unfit to work but then you see them on here 10 hours a day posting comments.

Surely if the DWP looked on this site it would show these people could work as data inputters, or a similar desk based job? Even on a production line that you could work on whilst seated?

Personally I have only had 2 weeks out of work since I left school, but then I am a very motivated person and I always see what I can do , not what I can't.

MMMmmm

Now I wonder if the DWP / emplyer will pay for the stuff for me to do just that?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

MMMmmm

Now I wonder if the DWP / emplyer will pay for the stuff for me to do just that?

Well said

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

But some people won't believe anything without links. And they will use the fact that someone hasn't provided links as proof that they can't possibly be telling the truth.

I have personally been accused of making things up that are actually facts, just because I don't post links. Well if I know something because I am directly connected to it, then I don't need to come up with a link. You can either believe me, or not.

indeed not to mention just because someone like the bbc has posted something on its site it doesnt mean its fact, especially on welfare, as the bbc is notorious for posting false stuff on welfare. Now I wait for the request for a link to prove the bbc posts inaccurate stuff on welfare.

Now here is a fact.

If I started posted comments that were pro government policy and saying things like I know 10 people commiting IB fraud, I would not be asked for links.

---------- Post added at 11:27 ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

There appears to be confusion between people doubting individuals' Subject Matter Expertise, gained through lifetime experience, and asking for verification of a claim that a major news organisation, which is seen as one of the main communicators of unbiased (as far as that is possible) news to the world, is deliberately suppressing news stories due to an anti-benefits claimant agenda. If the BBC are doing this, it needs to be publicised.

hugh.

Here is how I am linked to information without it been on the media.

I am an ex claimant.
I know many claimants.
I know them mostly because I do charity work and am in contact with many not only claimants but also advisors and legal people who provide legal assistance to claimants. I dont provide legal assistance as I am not qualified but I am able to talk to those people directly, I am also made aware of things like protests which get planned etc. and have been involved with contacting news agencies.

Sorry I cannot provide a news link for this. So as has been said you either believe me or you dont.

Incidently when I was a claimant, I spent 2.5k in legal fees to get the benefit I was entitled to, and I had to do this before the system got reformed twice and toughened up (it was tough 4 years ago never mind now), obviously the 2.5k has been paid back to me courtesy of the so called taxpayer, yeah great efficiency, lets force people to fight for their benefits and pay thousands on legal costs, appeals, commissioners hearings instead of just paying them their rightful benefit. It was estimated the DWP spent 12k to try and not pay me £90 a week.

---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

Unfortenatly there is no protection in law for a news agency in bad mouthing a group of people who arent an individual (particurly someone famous) or a company. Like libel and slander. So we can read commants like "benefit scroungers" "fiddlers" without any legal recourse to the media companies.

---------- Post added at 11:44 ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 ----------

Originally Posted by New to cable

What makes me laugh is reading on here how some people claim they're unfit to work but then you see them on here 10 hours a day posting comments.

Surely if the DWP looked on this site it would show these people could work as data inputters, or a similar desk based job? Even on a production line that you could work on whilst seated?

Personally I have only had 2 weeks out of work since I left school, but then I am a very motivated person and I always see what I can do , not what I can't.

Ahh the typical know it all who can diagnose if people can work. I dont see anyone on here 10 hours a day, so there is your first lie.

Second, posting on a forum is a lot different to having to get dressed, travel, be compliant to health and safety (not be a danger to others in workplace), have a good attendance record (fluctuating illness not allowed), be able to tolerate working environments, stress, stick to set working hours and so on. You make life sound much simpler than it is I think its bad enough people guessing if people can work based on seeing them in the street but gasp over an internet forum wow.

What would most defenitly help the situation is if working from home jobs were available, ones with completely flexible hours as well to work round fluctuating conditions.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Keep that reasoning up and you will have no one to debate with

Debate is fine. But some people just argue with you whatever you say


<edit Rob: deleted>

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:30 ----------

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

MMMmmm

Now I wonder if the DWP / emplyer will pay for the stuff for me to do just that?

Don't take this the wrong way, as I'm not taking sides, and all cases are different. But some employers will pay people to work from home as data imputters. Although I very much doubt that there would be enough of those sort of jobs to go around all the people who are housebound

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Debate is fine. But some people just argue with you whatever you say



<edit Rob- deleted>

Sadly, the first sentence I can't argue with, but the 2nd, <edit Rob - deleted>, you did post 2 contradictory posts and it is fair to ask why. (As part of the debate).

New to cable while i'm not on here or any other forum for anywhere near ten hours a day and therefore cannot be someone your on about i would make a couple of points. First there is a big difference between going the thirty feet to my pc and walking the 486 metres to the nearest chance of employment. I know the distance exactly because it is the goal I have for medications I try. Also if I am having anything but a good day I don't come on forums at all and it is no big deal more so given the forums I bother with regulars know I have health problems and don't complain when I might not reply for a few days an employer wouldn't be the same.

How I with it was simple as you make out because if it was I would have a job but sadly for both me and the taxpayer it isn't.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by peanut

Sadly, the first sentence I can't argue with, but the 2nd, <edit Rob - deleted>, you did post 2 contradictory posts and it is fair to ask why. (As part of the debate).

Well they were nothing to do with each other. The first one was talking about the fraudsters who are being targeted by the clamp down. Which although as usual the government have got it completely wrong, it was and still is the intention.

My comment that you think contradicts the first statement was part of a conversation.

Some people on here seem to thing that you can't have different views about different parts of a very broad topic.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Well they were nothing to do with each other. The first one was talking about the fraudsters who are being targeted by the clamp down. Which although as usual the government have got it completely wrong, it was and still is the intention.

My comment that you think contradicts the first statement was part of a conversation.

Some people on here seem to thing that you can't have different views about different parts of a very broad topic.

Timothy, "The first one" - as you put it - was your comment "It's not the disabled who are the target."

You then subsequently contradicted yourself by stating "I bet it is on the number of cases, in which case it is in their interest to stop people DLA, and then for them to have an appeal."

Effectively, by your own admission, one cannot selectively "stop people (sic) DLA" without targetting those people who are in receipt of that particular benefit, ie "the disabled".

<edit Rob - deleted>

As I stated earlier it is apparent that even you yourself do not understand what you are posting.

It is quite clear, as several people aside from myself have pointed out to you, that you frequently contradict yourself in your posts.

It does not help that when challenged on this that you revert to accusatory denial.

<edit Rob: deleted>

[MovedGoalPosts]

The petty insults against other forum members stops now.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

But some people won't believe anything without links. And they will use the fact that someone hasn't provided links as proof that they can't possibly be telling the truth.

I have personally been accused of making things up that are actually facts, just because I don't post links. Well if I know something because I am directly connected to it, then I don't need to come up with a link. You can either believe me, or not.

Then you would lose the argument.You can't disagree with someone by stating something is so without providing proof.That is not how debate or discussion takes place.Without proof what you say is hearsay,innuendo and suggestion all of which would lose you any case on a court of law or a debating society or a mere forum.Unless you prove what you say is true then you are not proven to be telling the truth just providing unsubstantiated gossip.

Now if we were down the pub that you could get away with this but as we are using one of the most powerful research tools then there is no excuse for you not to back up sweeping statements with the truth...unless they don't have a word of truth to them.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Then you would lose the argument.You can't disagree with someone by stating something is so without providing proof.That is not how debate or discussion takes place.Without proof what you say is hearsay,innuendo and suggestion all of which would lose you any case on a court of law or a debating society or a mere forum.Unless you prove what you say is true then you are not proven to be telling the truth just providing unsubstantiated gossip.

I better not mention how big something is of mine then, you'll be wanting pictures.

and it's not always the case anyway. take God for example. we don't require proof that he exists when he's debated. same with a lot of things that's up for debate. if there were proof in the form of pictures or documented evidence, then there would be no topic for debate?

unless we were all in agreement.

which is highly unlikely. as not everyone likes Marmite.

[SMG]

Some people with disabilities are capable of some kind of work. Others, often with sickness & other debitating ailments are not. I`m often reminded that when we see someone who is disabled, we see them on one of their "good days" We very rarely see them on their "Ill days", simply because they are at home, ill.

As with members on forums who can spend hours on the PC, perhaps they are having a good day, & choose to spend time indoors. Perhaps we should then think twice, & ask ourselves why members are also absent for long periods, could it be perhaps they are too ill to spend any time on a PC?

Every genuine disabled or sick person has to live down the stigma of the useless lazy morons who deliberately & falsely claim benefits.