On 31 Aug 2012 at 1:12pm Disgusted wrote:
The guy who is always riding around lewes on his mobility scooter, sometimes with a woman on a similar machine........How come he was walking around Tesco last night, pushing a trolley with not a hint of disablement?
On 31 Aug 2012 at 1:19pm God Botherer wrote:
Hallelujah! Praise the Lord. It is truely a miracle. Jesus lives..
On 31 Aug 2012 at 3:13pm Numberjack wrote:
I guess he can walk once in a blue moon!!
On 31 Aug 2012 at 4:27pm Me-mo wrote:
He could have something wrong that comes and goes (i know its doubtful) but i have a weird arthritis so most days i am fine and then others i cant even walk 2 paces without being in unbearable pain....
On 31 Aug 2012 at 4:52pm Teacher wrote:
You don't have to be disabled to ride around on an invalid scooter. It's when you claim disability it's wrong. It's probably a lot cheaper than using a car. At least I assume you can use one if you are not disabled a bit like a mini smart car.
On 31 Aug 2012 at 5:00pm cliffecat wrote:
They both get more in benefits than when i was in an £18,500pa job six years ago !!!! boasted about it too !!!
On 31 Aug 2012 at 5:03pm Teacher wrote:
Thats a different ball game then.
On 31 Aug 2012 at 9:38pm the old mayor wrote:
Maybe he has just been inspired by the Paralympics !!
On 31 Aug 2012 at 10:31pm Snapdragon wrote:
Lots of people with mobility problems can cope better when they're pushing a supermarket trolley because it improves their stability/balance etc. Like a giant zimmer.
On 31 Aug 2012 at 11:44pm Stanley wrote:
There is, let's not forget, the woman who rides around Lewes on a micro-scooter! I've seen her on several occasions without the aforementioned scooter, and I find it, frankly, appalling...
On 1 Sep 2012 at 12:37am Hello Trevor wrote:
Agreed Snapdragon. It can also help to add more weight to said trolley by adding large amounts of booze, fags and oven chips for a steadier ride.
On 1 Sep 2012 at 3:39am Paramedicman wrote:
We used to call these mobility aids - DHSS crutches/zimmers/etc.
On 1 Sep 2012 at 9:22am padster wrote:
Disgusted, what is your point? You see this guy with a mobility scooter some of the time and then you see him walking in tesco. What is your point?
Your assuming that because he has a motorised scooter he cant walk? or maybe he cant walk long distances. What qualifies you to know what a disabled person looks like. He may well have a condition which can fluctuate, he may be disabled by his heart / lungs/ chronic medical conditions which is not as obvious as someone who has crutches, walking stick etc.
I think your being very judgemental and without much evidence to back up your feelings. I think your making assumptions that this gentleman is in receipt of welfare payments yet his walking demonstrates that he he maybe should not be???
Whatever your motivation i ask you this, would you swap places with him? would you be him? i am sure you would say No, because whatever is the cards that life has placed out for this chap he certainly looks like he has a fair bit of struggle in his life.
Maybe you should turn your anger onto the rich 1% in this country who rob us more ( tax avoidance etc) than any poor bast=~rd who gets a few extra payments from the DHSS
On 1 Sep 2012 at 9:46am jonnyboy wrote:
Well said Padster.
On 1 Sep 2012 at 10:42am Southover Queen wrote:
Well said indeed, Padster.
Here are a few facts to get your chops around. Hate crime against disabled people has soared as the government trot out their rhetoric labelling disabled people as "benefit scroungers". The vast majority of disabling conditions are not visible - for instance, heart/lung problems, multiple sclerosis or conditions affecting the muscles. The public believes that 50-70% of disabled claimants while the actual figure is probably less than 1% (Glasgow Media Trust research 2011). A lot of people have actually died shortly after being declared fit for work by ATOS who are applying the Government's new criteria to disability benefit claimants - for an example, google Cecilia Burns Strabane.
I've linked to a document which gives some statistics which should perhaps give you pause, except you won't read it because it would challenge your comfortable, prejudiced position. Nasty.
Check it out here »
On 1 Sep 2012 at 10:53am Southover Queen wrote:
Sorry, missed out an essential part of this sentence:
"The public believes that 50-70% of disabled claimants are fraudulent while the actual figure is probably less than 1% (Glasgow Media Trust research 2011)." Also, it's the Glasgow Media Group not Trust - I've linked to the report in question, which makes very disturbing reading. If you can be bothered, that is.
Check it out here »
On 1 Sep 2012 at 12:15pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Well said, Padster and SQ, although I daresay you'll be dismissed as loony lefty/bleeding heart liberals or whatever this week's insult for anyone not on the rabid right is.
The average Daily Heil reader can't get their heads round the fact that not all disabilities are visible, or that many conditions are relapsing/remitting in nature. It's a shame it's not possible to swap disabling illnesses. Some people would benefit from a couple of weeks with a disabling condition and living on benefits, and then see if they'd like to swap back.
On 1 Sep 2012 at 3:30pm Clifford wrote:
Well said, Padster, Southover Queen and ACT. Whenever the economy has problems the scapegoating starts - sometimes it involves picking on ethnic minorities, at other times the unemployed, and now the disabled. That's how the real culprits keep their power.
On 1 Sep 2012 at 6:55pm Southover Queen wrote:
Awww, come on all you thumbs down clickers. I've given you proper facts and statistics, not tittle tattle and bitter gossip: this is proper research presented by an academic institution monitoring attitudes and press coverage and another charity presenting facts and figures surrounding disability in the UK. No spin from "loony left newspapers", but source statistics.
Let's hear why they're wrong and you're right, and all these people recklessly riding mobility scooters are stealing from the state. Or we'll just conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.
On 1 Sep 2012 at 7:13pm Extractor fan wrote:
SQ would you class being stuck up your own A### as a disability , the facts you quote must be correct , but I think you might find we do have lots of malingerers , in this country we do look after the old and less fortunate reasonably well , it would be nice to make sure the limited funds and resources are channelled in the right direction , some people do seem to milk it , and get away with it for years , I know nothing about the individual at to top of this thread but do know who it is his walking ability and scooter may or may not fall into a grey area if it does lets hope it's sorted , if it doesn't may his god go with him
On 1 Sep 2012 at 7:33pm Cliffe Hanger wrote:
Hello SQ. I will happily admit to being one of the 'thumbs down' clickers.
This is not because I have any sympathy at all with the original poster. I am aware of the mobility scooter rider that he or she mentions. Frankly, I do not care whether he has a disability or not, or whether he is in receipt of benefits or not. It is none of my business, and I leave it to the appropriate authorities to sort out.
I clicked on the 'thumbs down' option mainly because I am getting bored of people using this forum to air their national political views. There are too many "Well said ..." type posts above, for my liking, which I find a little dull. So I gave them all a thumbs down. Sorry. No offense was intended.
Also, I am a lazy ar*e, so I have not read the Glasgow Media Trust article in its entirety. But if you can point me in the direction of any solid research that can claim to measure accurately the number of fraudulent benefit claimants, I would be amazed. I am not saying it is higher or lower than 1%. I am just saying you cannot measure it.
On 1 Sep 2012 at 7:54pm taken for a ride wrote:
Yes Disgusted, the two you are talking about have quite a reputation in town.
On 1 Sep 2012 at 8:18pm king cnut wrote:
As someone who works in the benefits arena I can tell you that fraud is much higher than 1%. No one really knows the true figure but its probably well over 25%. The fraud does tend to be in more specific areas such as claiming motobility (free car) and single person (undeclared partner and/or earnings).
And yes, I know the two referred two (as do the old bill) but they're not alone. I wish i could name names but I just give them my best paddington bear stare that says I know you're a cheating lying sponger!!
On 1 Sep 2012 at 8:36pm Cliffe Hanger wrote:
Did you see what I did there, SQ? I gave King Cnut a thumbs down. Again, I bear him no ill will, but I refuse to believe that anyone can know the true extent of benefit fraud (to be fair, he kind of claimed that himself, before going on to say it was probably over 25%).
We can throw statistics at one another until the proverbial cows come home, but in reality no-one knows, do they? Benefit fraud is not really something people are going to admit to in a survey.
On 1 Sep 2012 at 8:38pm Southover Queen wrote:
I'm not airing my "national political views", I get sick of ill-founded and defamatory views touted here as evidence of the "state of the nation" when all they generally are are examples of the prejudices of the individual posters.
Those estimates of the amount of overpayment of benefits due to claimant fraud are actually the government's own, published by the DWP itself. I've added a link to the paper. Prepare to be amazed.
I'm sorry you don't think it's any of your business. It's your money (assuming that you pay or have paid taxes) and I think it's everyone's business to be vigilant about how those are spent. I take an interest in how my taxes are spent because I want to have an informed opinion so that I can play my part in our democracy and our society. I challenge people posting what looks like malicious gossip here because it's poisonous and very pervasive.
Check it out here »
On 1 Sep 2012 at 8:49pm Cliffe Hanger wrote:
Thank you SQ, that looks like an interesting document and I shall read it properly tomorrow. I do pay taxes, in fact I pay quite a lot of taxes, but I do not worry about any individual claimant. Because I delegate that to someone else. By paying taxes.
On 1 Sep 2012 at 9:14pm Make it gold wrote:
Blimey SQ we could have an Olympics every year just on housing benefit alone
On 2 Sep 2012 at 10:53am Hand in my pocket wrote:
They live in the old converted toilets by the football ground. Scrounging idle twats..........
On 2 Sep 2012 at 11:35am Aled Davies wrote:
When I first read the title of this thread, I read it like it's a scooter that's not valid, as opposed to a spaz chariot. I did laugh lol.
On 2 Sep 2012 at 4:45pm old Cynic wrote:
Is it okay to drink vodka and drive your scooter - because both of them do and Ive seen them sitting in the Priory getting rat assed with a couple of other wino mates
On 2 Sep 2012 at 11:56pm Bloke 2 wrote:
I saw the said pair as I was approaching the Kingston roundabout driving East on A27. The scooters were pulled up, he was keeping dixie whilst she was squatting in a roadside bush taking a leak. This was about 4pm on a Monday afternoon.
On 3 Sep 2012 at 3:06pm Snapdragon wrote:
I can certainly see why so many people begrudge them what sounds like a lovely lifestyle.
On 3 Sep 2012 at 9:39pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
There's something ironic about a woman whose house used to be a toilet peeing by the side of the road.
On 4 Sep 2012 at 4:01pm madge wrote:
King knut if you work in the benefits arena why would you make such a misleading statement like... 'The fraud does tend to be in more specific areas such as claiming motobility (free car)'?
This causes such misunderstanding for genuine claimants, these people do NOT get a free car, they get a mobility allowance to help them with their disability needs, some people choose to use this allowance to hire a car from the motobility scheme. Some people need adapted cars others not so but either way the vehicle and its running costs are not free they pay for it using the disability allowance.
Yet again this was another misleading blanket statement that unfairly effects genuine disabled people.