Motability

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Kursk

The Mail is a National newspaper with circulation figures that would seem to suggest it reflects a popular view. That said, the article referenced is available free online so you don't need to subscribe to view and to discuss the topic. You're not getting your hands dirty on a 'hateful little rag' that is frequently referenced on this forum

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

EVEN THE IMMIGRANTS KNOW HOW TO GET THEIR HAND ON A NICE NEW CAR , I SEE THEM EVERY DAY AT MY LOCAL SUPERMARKET. STRUGGLE TO GET OUT OF THE CAR THEN RACE AROUND THE AISLES WITH THE TROLLEY.

Another classic:

I know of several drug dealers in Northern Ireland that have these cars. They just tell the doctor they have a bad back or depression. How do I know? The whole town knows about it.

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

Originally Posted by Kursk

This sort of fraud needs to be kept in the public eye. In our small way we are helping to sustain awareness. Two idiots with 2 big chips it seems but thanks for helping.

You say there are things that need to change with Motability, what do you suggest?

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 .

[techguyone]

Well done these guys in particular (showing as examples)

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

So if you meet people who have constantly been on disability benefits for two years or more despite what you might think they are legit. Generally i have found the people criticising or claiming how easy benefits are have never actually gone through the system they have just read about it in a paper and accepted it as correct and never delve much deeper.

There are things that need to change in the benefits system ,including Motability but when people like you start spouting that kind of rubbish all that happens is sensible debate gets smothered by discrimination and hatred .

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.

Originally Posted by ianch99

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

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

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

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

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

The only way to have no fraud is to have no welfare system is that what you'd prefer?.

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.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

As for the mail numbers of readers doesn't mean it's good mein kampf and the little red book being two examples and the mail has an unpleasant agenda and viewpoint that has more in common with the ideology of the nazi's which given it's past owner i suppose shouldn't be surprising.

You're a regular reader then?

Originally Posted by ianch99

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

You're a regular reader then?

Originally Posted by martyh

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 .

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?

Originally Posted by techguyone

I could go on.

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

Originally Posted by techguyone

fricking

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

Originally Posted by techguyone

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

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

Originally Posted by Maggy J

You're a regular reader then?

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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

He's a regular reader, evidently.

[papa smurf]

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

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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

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.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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

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

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Kursk

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.

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

[techguyone]

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

Originally Posted by Kursk

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by techguyone

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

What do you expect he read it in the Mail

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

Originally Posted by Kursk

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?

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

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.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by techguyone

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

/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?

Originally Posted by martyh

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............

..........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

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.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

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.

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

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Kursk

We all know the accuracy of the press is questionable

Then why defend the indefensible?

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

Originally Posted by Kursk

You're a regular reader then?

He's a regular reader, evidently

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.