So I met Jeremy Corbyn.

So me and Techiecarer went to hear Jeremy Corbyn speak.

Even though we arrived early the hall was already packed. Asking for help we managed to get seated after someone had kindly offered their seat. Before the event had started the hall was filled with people spilling out of the doors and crowding around the entrance of the hall desperate to hear him speak. I obviously thought that this was likely as the same scenario seems to have been played out up and down the country. So arriving to a rapturous applause he began his speech.

He was the first politician I have ever heard to categorically state that those on welfare are not to blame for the UK’s problems, that we should be proud of the welfare state, that the NHS should be free from the point of use and that society has failed so many people in need of mental health treatment. That immigrants fleeing atrocities should be seen as people in need and not as swarms, as if they were non human. That we need to invest, tackle tax avoidance and increase public housing and pay. That we should have more public ownership, look after our environment and invest in education. That people should be able to learn what they want without worrying about fees at any point in their life. For the most part I agreed greatly with what he said even though I still have some questions on some of his policies.

After his talk he took random questions from the audience.

He then dashed around to talk and take selfies with everyone that wanted one. There were people at the event who were obviously struggling in their lives but he approached them with no less interest than anyone else and listened to what they had to say. Too often politicians seem awkward when talking to ordinary people and it was nice to see they were treated no differently.

Initially I didn’t think I would manage to grab a word with him, I was low on spoons and trying to ask something in a crowded room is not the easiest especially as I was sitting down. I thought I would only have a second as he was rushing to another event but he stopped and smiled. I spoke to him about how the disabled community felt especially about Labour’s actions and the discrimination faced due to the negative stereotypes portrayed in the media. He answered and when I mentioned my health asked about how I was managing. I also spoke to him about care leavers and he actively asked about my experiences.

Although he was in a rush I can honestly say there was not a moment where I felt he wanted to rush the conversation. I shook his hand and he reached to the side of me to shake Techiecarer’s hand, as well as the lad to the other side of me.

The main point that resounded with me from his speech is when he stated that no party has the automatic right to exist and that the public should play a part in helping shaping its policies.

I have supported the party in the past, as well as other parties but more recently like others I haven’t felt like I could. Labour's inaction to hold true to its roots has been infuriating. The election campaign was run on an attitude that voters must vote for Labour otherwise the Tories would get in and that voters must accept austerity light. That any disgruntled Labour voter who votes instead for another left wing party are allowing the Tories to get into power and obviously this attitude did nothing to win voters over. Throughout the Labour leadership campaign, the other Labour candidates and political commentators have stated that Labour lost the general election because it was too left wing. The fact that they state this shows how little they are listening to the public. Labour lost because it was offering austerity light. So people either decided not to vote or instead voted for other left wing parties. Instead of coming to the realisation that people were voting for other parties because they didn’t believe in Labour's policies, Labour decided to attack them stating how much their vote would be wasted. It is true that under the current electoral system for Westminster that these votes are more often than not “lost” but Labour did not understand that people wanted to vote for policies they believed in and I respect anyone holding on to what they believe in.

It is often stated that people do not care about politics any more but if that was truly the case why is this man packing halls up and down the country with people spilling out of the doors and jumping up to windows in the hope to hear what he wants to say?

Yes Corbyn could be like any other politician, this could be an act and he could totally change if he becomes leader or even prime minister but at the moment he seems to have been the most genuine politician that I have met. There is also no guarantee that the party, like any other might not backtrack on any election promises made. With how current opinion is within the Labour Party, there has been doubt cast on whether the party will allow him to lead if he gets elected as leader.

But you can not tell me that people aren't interested in politics, they just want policies they can believe in, an alternative whatever the party.

Westminster, If we can do it so can you!

So a few weeks ago I watched Prime Minister's Questions, oh why did I.

I rarely watch Prime Minister's Questions anymore, it has descended into a circus of baying, laughing & taunting that any child could tell you is a deeply wrong way to behave especially when parliament discusses matters that affect the public so deeply. But even putting this aside, no genuine debate occurs, ministers on the prime minister's benches jostle for a turn to stand up & state how wonderfully they're doing, with the opposition of course taking it’s turn to say they could have done it better. Any genuine inter bench debate is silenced. There is no debate, no back & forth of ideas & definitely no compromise. So whats the point? All Prime Minister's questions shows us is what the government & the opposition is arguing about on a given week. What they accuse each other of failing at & what achievements they claim to have accomplished, regardless of the truth of them. All of which are covered by any news source that covers politics within the UK.

Watch one Prime Minister's Questions & you can't wonder why people are disillusioned with politics in Westminster.

This is however not how Questions are done throughout the rest of the UK. With the countries that make up the UK having their respective devolved Assemblies & Parliaments that sit depending on the nation, on a differing amount of devolved legislative powers.

So I decided to look at the most recent sessions (at the time of writing), in the respective parliaments & assemblies across the UK, that were currently available online when all nations sat during the week. (I couldn't find any link for the London Assembly)

The First Questions were on Monday 24th November - First & Deputy First Ministers questions: Northern Ireland's Assembly.

During this session the chamber talked about the troubles, the Irish language & religion. Northern Ireland with such a troubled past, can gather in the chamber & discuss topics which outside the chamber can still be very heated without resorting to the same type of behaviour seen in Westminster.

The Second Questions were on Tuesday 25th November - First Minister's Questions: Welsh Assembly

During this session the chamber talked about transport, including roads & rail. The First Minister was asked about the changes in fares & admitted at present he did not know the information to give to the minister but that information would be made available in due time. There was no spin given & no guess work & the minister asking the question accepted the First Minister's answer. The chamber got a little more heated at 18.20 in the video when Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood spoke about Welsh under funding. However this didn't continue for long after the speaker intervened & brought the chamber to order. There was then further debate about health & domestic violence. 

Wednesday 26th November - Prime Minister's Questions: Westminster

The debate started with VAT & how the Prime Minister believes there should be a debate in the commons about the Welsh NHS even though this is a devolved issue. Even if there was to be any debate in the Commons, it should be about the NHS as a whole & not instead an attempt to politically point score by attacking the Welsh NHS. The Coalition attacks the Welsh NHS because a Labour government is sitting in the Senedd (Assembly) & a there is a Labour opposition in Westminster. There are various problems within the NHS as a whole but as a Labour government doesn't hold a majority in any other parliament, there is no other opportunity to attack the Labour opposition. 

The debate then moved onto those with learning difficulties, often those who get placed into institutions away from & against their families wishes instead of being supported in the community.

Then there was A LOT of it's your fault, no it's your fault. There was also a lot of “will you congratulate” so & so & oh our economic plan was so “awesome”. If this was cut out, all of the peppy filler, there may be so much more time to discuss more pressing issues?

Anyway, after the peppy interlude, the debate moved on to accusing the government of pandering to UKIP. Followed by the NHS & the Israeli bill removing the rights from non jews. A minister then tried to praise the personnel who were going to help with the ebola outbreak. Something very worthy of praise, however people continued to speak whilst she was trying to talk. Its worth noting that this help is arriving months after charities on the ground had stated the urgent need for further assistance & unfortunately this help was only given after westerners had become infected.

Thursday 27th November - First Minister's Questions: Scottish Parliament 

The session began with Jackie Baillie asking what the First Minster was doing & wishing her a safe journey to the Isle of Man. Could you really see an opposing party member doing this in Westminster? The debate primarily focused on further powers being given to Scotland. Although the debate was a little more rowdy in parts, the debate still continued with the Chair bringing the chamber back to order.

I have included all of the videos of each debate, from each of the respective parliaments & assemblies. I don't expect anyone to sit through & watch each session but click on each video, a few times on each & the difference in noise level between Westminster & the devolved parliaments is astounding. Especially the shocking frequency of how people are not talking when someone else is trying to speak in the devolved parliaments. Has it come to the point that we must implement a talking stick within Westminster & for ministers not holding the stick, to sit with a finger to their lips like children do in primary school before they learn to listen?

Although there has always been debate about the effectiveness, along with the ability to efficiently legislate in the devolved parliaments, the fact remains there is much more purposeful debate seen in these parliaments. There has been research to suggest that parliaments that sit in a rectangular chamber with two sides are much more confrontational than those that are round & parliaments that sit in a rectangular chamber are much less likely to compromise. In addition, in all of the devolved parliaments within the UK there is an opportunity for the member posing the question to the First Minister to respond to their answer, something which is not seen at Westminster with the exception being the lead for the opposition. Regardless of the reason it is clearly possible to have an adult debate without the behaviour seen in Westminster. When people are watching ministers laugh when pressing through legislation that may impact upon a person's life so significantly that it may mean they have less food, no roof over their head & less opportunity in life, there should be no surprise how little faith people have with Westminster. Laughing shows how little they are in touch with the people in which their legislation affects & that I think is the main difference, that too often Westminster MPs forget who they represent until the next national vote.

But it is always important to remember. These MPs are voted in, they represent their constituents with their consent. We are the ones that must push for change & understand the importance of who you vote for on election day. 

Chronic illness, disability & a box that doesn’t “quite” fit

So I am referring to a blog post I have read titled “Please Stop Framing Disability as Just a Welfare Issue” & although I refer to the piece it is not an attack at the bloggers character but criticism of a piece that I felt was deeply one sided in parts.

I have linked to the blog post that I am referring to above & about half way down the post it refers to a section of the disabled community as the “Sick movement”.

I can’t see how refusing to accept a section of the disabled community as that, disabled, is suppose to support a move to have the disabled community included fully into society?

Just because someone may personally believe that these people do not “fit” into the definition they have of disability doesn't make it true.

It is also deeply disturbing & damaging to imply that if one person is perceived to have a severe disability & can do a proportion of work, that people with perceived “less severe” disabilities should have no excuses. When in reality most have additional difficulties that are not taken into account when casting judgement, which in itself can often be most damaging to the individual & will not support any idea of being confident living with their disability.

I have several overlapping medical conditions including psoriatic arthritis & hypermobility & although some conditions with the appropriate medical treatment can be well managed, medicine is still not perfect & often a person's condition is still disabling.

I have a condition which as a result causes disability & so therefore i am DISABLED. My arthritis causes me pain, fatigue which restricts my movement. I am restricted in my movement by the inflammation & pain & I can not carry anything heavy because my wrists will physically give way & this is just to start. Although I have medical treatment, I am one of those where medicine can not control the disabling aspects of my condition.

Disability by definition is a restriction & a limitation. It is not because we aren't trying hard enough, that we’re not “determined” or that we are giving in. With all the will in the world it won’t necessarily be enough if the body can’t keep up, even if the person had unlimited support & adaptations & this is not a failing on the person’s part.

It is bad enough that the government & the media consistently bash the disabled community on its legitimacy (which creates a more ablest environment) without members of the disabled community excluding people, often newly disabled, because they don’t believe that these people belong in their definition of disability.

However much the blogger in question may not like welfare being part of the immediate debate it is because if people are left without money & security when you are disabled (especially newly so) it will worry the life out of you, as it would for others disabled or not.

At the point when the brown envelope hits the mat the last thing a disabled person is thinking about is how to change disability policy for the better but instead are hoping that they will have a roof over their head, food & heat. The blogger makes it come across as if the first thing that enters a newly disabled person’s mind are pound signs but instead it is worry.

The work capability assessments work on the basis of the person is "guilty" or has something to hide & it grades on how “damaged” a person is. I would argue that the work capability assessments are the immediate basic problem for many. They are disabling in the way they are carried out & inspire no level of confidence from the individual that they will receive the support they need.

From what I have taken, from what the blogger has written, I agree that society is disabling but even if we had some beautiful utopia (oh how I wish) people will still be disabled especially those with chronic illnesses until medicine advances further. The WCA is broken & campaigners are drawing attention to the failings of the assessment to try & improve the situation. If the WCA was altered or removed this wouldn’t be the end to campaigning, it is only the start.

It is not seen as a "black or white" issue or that simply welfare is the only issue affecting disability. I find it incredibly patronising that people who campaign for improvement in the WCA apparently want the "protective feeling of a hospital environment".

The campaigners that campaign against the WCA want greater support given to disabled people so that they can realise their full potential. However many of the policies that were moving towards this have been cut, altered or greatly reduced including the ILF, PIP & access to work. Although imperfect, these were steps towards giving greater support to disabled people to realise their full potential & to be independent but due to the cuts the progress that has been made is largely being undone.

Disease does disable people & so does society. I would love society to lift the barriers around access to transport & buildings, for flexible working, job sharing or variable hours. But also for society to see that some people can't do paid work but could volunteer & that some can’t work but still have valuable contributions to make in other ways & to appreciate the value in it.

But this takes time & for society to care, which seems to be happening less & less with the increasing scrounger rhetoric portrayed by the media. Disability doesn’t fit into a tidy box or category it is as unique as the individual affected. The blogger only sees the final goal, not appreciating that we can not ignore the issues of the WCA if we want fair treatment for disabled people.

The process takes time.

Disability - Thinking for two more seconds

Growing up I felt very proud of my country, a country that after the war, after going through so much, created the NHS & the welfare system because it was needed & the right thing to do.

Aneurin Bevan said on the formation the NHS that “despite our financial and economic anxieties, we are still able to do the most civilised thing in the world: put the welfare of the sick in front of every other consideration.”

And growing up this is how I felt my country was, that on the whole we would always try to do the right thing, the moral thing. Later, naturally I lost my child-like naivety, I know as a country we have got it wrong but somewhere down the line the truth has been twisted, moulded into something that is not.

Certain sections of the media have perpetuated stories unrepresentative of the majority, twisting stories to create sensationalised headlines, backed up with manipulated statistics.

Stories on “welfare reform”, benefit claimants with 60in TVs, of disabled claimants that dare to step out of the house, even implying welfare is somehow responsible for murder.

And if history has shown us anything, if something is repeated often enough, regardless of validity, people will start to believe it.

As a result, media & public opinion have become so hostile in parts that many disabled people feel guilty or feel that society expects them to feel guilty, like they have done something wrong, whereas in reality they have done nothing of the sort.

And the thing is, why should any disabled person feel guilty?

I have multiple conditions, none of them were my fault, it is rarely anyone’s fault that they become disabled & it can happen to anyone.

When using public transport, I’ve been glared at, muttered about & verbally attacked because I’m a young girl sitting in the priority seat with my walking stick in hand even though I’m more than entitled to be there, just as any disabled person is.

When I have gotten on & there are no seats, people will automatically move for an elderly person that gets on. I have no problem with that. When I was younger & able, I was brought up to offer your seat to an elderly person if they got on & there are none available as a matter of respect. My point is many a time an elderly person has gotten on with better mobility than my own & they are offered a seat automatically, but for me people will wait & stare, the cogs in their head trying to work out, why does a young girl need a stick, inevitably as I start to stumble someone else moves & offers me their seat.

My point is that some people believe that, of course an elderly person will have mobility problems but a young person surely wouldn’t. They either don’t fully understand how & to what extent young people can be disabled, or believe what has been said in the media, that benefit fraud is high.
It has got to the ridiculous stage that people have even been berated in the media for having “nice things.”

The amount of times I have heard people say “Well I can’t afford an iPhone so why should they be able to get one,” is enough to drive anyone insane.

But people don’t take the time to think for longer than a second that it may have been a gift, that it may have been bought before they got sick, that they took out a loan for it or got it on the never, never. Also often people don’t realise that many disabled people do work.

They don’t think for a second that we all have different priorities, you may go out 3 nights a week at £50 a go, whereas the disabled person may not go out at all or very rarely & instead saves their money for their contract phone of £40 which in comparison means they are spending considerably less.

People don’t think for a second that its their lifeline, their contact with the hospital or GP, to friends or family, their ability to socialise & keep up to date with the outside world which is especially vital when enduring stints in hospital.

People don’t think for a second how much technology is an aid for people with disabilities & that this is only going to get bigger.

An iPad or tablet for example is great for people that can’t lift up a conventional laptop & need to move position & location during the day. Voice dictation & predictive text software is improving with every new update, helping people with dexterity issues such as arthritis & hypermobility. Disabled people do so much with technology, often using technology to complete tasks they can’t physically do in real life.

Another topic I have found people to obsess on is that people should be given food stamps or their benefits on a government card that excludes items such as alcohol & cigarettes.

Firstly I will never understand how someone can become so obsessed with making sure that people don’t have certain things & how they find the energy to, but in countries that have adopted these systems, they are always more costly to implement & a black market always forms along side it.

You also would be creating a level of stigma, a way to recognise those who are receiving support & I often wonder if people want that to make themselves feel better about their own lives.

I have also heard people state that “unless you have paid something into the system, you shouldn’t get anything out.”

So what about children born with severe learning disabilities & disabilities? Or teenagers who are diagnosed with a disability? Tough luck?

Yes, some disabled people are able to work but others can’t, with better systems in place & real support, it may be possible to help more people in the future but I don’t think anyone should be penalised because they were born disabled or developed a disability when they were young before they had a chance to pay in. Disabled peoples’ contributions to society are too often dismissed if it isn’t through paid work.

People complain about what their taxes are spent on, I don’t think that will ever change but in comparison to countries with mostly private services, it is so much more expensive added together. Due to the type of system we have, there is no profit made & as many pay in, it acts like a group discount meaning that it is cheaper for all.

People seemed to understand that although you may not receive anything at the time, that it was there for if you were ever unfortunate enough to need it or for any of your family or friends. I didn’t have my disability or illnesses from birth, like most they came later in life & it can happen to any of us.

I think we are too quick to pass judgement, possibly more now through the advent of social media.We used to think deeper about what we were going to say, not to edit ourselves but to form a balanced opinion. However I feel that when we don’t take more than a second to look deeper, like with the media, inaccuracies & prejudices unrepresentative of the majority will continue to be passed off as the majority, This is only going to increase the toxic nature & hostility towards people that require assistance & we should hold on to some of our child-like instincts & embrace a balanced, factual judgement.

I can’t understand how people are attacking the most vulnerable in this country, on a misguided belief that what a minority of the group do, is some how representative of the majority but ultimately disabled people in this country didn’t get us into this mess in the first place & deserve support. It is also not that benefits are too high but that people have different priorities & for some, wages are too low in relation to living costs.

And to the disabled people in this country, you shouldn’t feel guilty as long as you have the conviction in your mind & in your heart that you are doing all you can, you can’t ask for more. Disabled people should no longer feel guilty for peoples’ inaccurate beliefs & should no longer feel guilty because people aren’t thinking for longer than two seconds.

The Big Benefits Row: Facts, fiction & a whole lot of yelling

The show began first with a montage of multiple clips from the bewildering amount of benefit shows that have been produced recently from it being mentioned in the papers, to the news, in documentaries & through benefit bashing tv.

The long & short of it is, the small percentage of fraud that occurs is drowned in the sea in coverage it receives & I think this is the single most important point that people don’t understand. This is a trend that has been seen throughout history, that it is not necessarily a reflection of the reality of the time but instead reflects the attitudes of society which I covered a bit in  The evolution of benefit tv.

Question 1: “Do you think the benefits system is fit or unfit for purpose?”

Apparently 66% believe that it isn’t.

I’d love to know how many people actually know what support the benefit system provides & how many voted unfit because they were thinking instead about even with the countless forms filled in & assessments people have, that many people found “fit for work” are having their benefits reinstated on appeal.

At the start you had Katie Hopkins as usual never pausing for a moment to engage her brain before running her mouth. She started as many have done on this topic trying to pass off prejudices & stereotypes as fact but was pulled into reality by Mathew Wright.

Then Mathew Wright explained that they wanted to separate the facts from fiction.

FACTS?!?!?!?

Excuse me while I wet myself in delight at a show that is presenting the facts instead of perpetuating myths further.

Matthew Wright highlighted that tax evasion is far greater than benefit fraud (with the resources dedicated to tackling this far lower) & Annabel Giles spoke brilliantly even with Katie attacking her in a childish voice that she “wanted to be a model & didn’t make it”.

Katie went on further about people having multiple children & was quickly told it is a very small minority, not the norm. This was followed with people on housing benefit living in posh neighbourhoods, again not the norm & this was finished of with remarks about how “hardworking Britain” had had enough of going to work & seeing people staying at home, this being said without any thought to what the person behind the curtain may have to contend with.

Question 2: “Do you think the portrayal of people on benefits is fair or unfair ?” A close split.

Peter Stringfellow like many doesn’t consider a pension a benefit. He said that his main concern was the “abuse, not the majority of people. I’m looking at people over there” (pointing to the people in wheelchairs) “that deserve everything they can get”. But when Mathew pointed out that the abuse was small he replied “Not it’s not small.”

I doubt that he meant just people in wheelchairs but people with disabilities as a whole. However so often people don’t understand how significant invisible & variable conditions are, how much people struggle to walk on crutches or with a stick & the effort, pain & discomfort they go through. This is particularity important when people in the latter have to use a wheelchair to get around, this can often be on occasion when their condition is particularly bad or dependant on the situation. It can also be when they go out because their condition is such that they can’t move quickly, safely or the pain & exhuastion would be too much & can’t simply “hop out” without a great deal of difficulty.

Ironically this occurred just before the show when Sue Marsh had to leave her chair outside then struggle up into the seats because the disability provision wasn’t adequate. People often don’t understand the effort it takes to do things that people take for granted & the amount of time it takes from you to recover which Sue details in her post about her experience about being dropped from the panel & the lack of provision.

Then there was "White Dee". I thought she was either going to blow her top or say her piece, keep quiet & let Katie Hopkins tie herself in knots which she did beautifully.

Annabel Giles pointed out, that if ‘White Dee’ was well & didn’t have depression of course she would be working & Dee agreed. I can’t understand why some people believe this is the “optimum lifestyle choice” whereas in fact they have no choice at all because they are ill.

Question 3: “Would you support or oppose tougher means testing & rules about claiming benefits ?”

Apparently 66% were in support & I wonder greatly how many have any idea how difficult, demeaning & time consuming the whole process is.

Rachel Johnson was a pleasant surprise, coming from the point of not knowing much about her, she commented on the worryingly high percentage of people being sanctioned on JSA & that for people to get help from a foodbank they need a voucher to Edwina Currie to which she replied “only some of them”

Matthew saw this as a great opportunity for Jack Monroe’s opinion. It would have been nice to have heard more of what Jack had to say, unfortunately Edwina was intent on childishly shouting her down.

Jack explained that “You can’t rock up to a food bank & just ask for some free food” but Edwina disagreed. Jack pointed out that she works with the Trussell Trust, the biggest foodbank organisation in UK which in order to get help you need a voucher.

Then for some bizarre reason Edwina said they only run one & when she’s asked if she’s ashamed that people beg for food, she says no.

Jack started to make a reasonable point about the economy & bankers when she’s cut off again by Edwina.

"You come from a rich family." Jack explains again, no she doesn’t. "Yes you do come from a rich family," Edwina says with all the finger pointing of panto.

I had read that Jack had said these accusations had been happening before the show & she said she wanted to say her piece which she is more than entitled to do. She explained that her mum was a nurse, dad was a fireman & that they were hardworking ‘blue collar’ workers.

Edwina throughout Jack trying to speak made countless rapid interruptions, to the point she spoke so quick at times you could barely make out what she had said. It’s clearly obvious when you’re interrupting someone like this you want to stop them from talking, bate them & nothing more.

Edwina continued with countless interuptions about how they both went to grammer school….so what? Many a kid from council estates did also & that it was Jack’s grandfather who was “rich”, that he was a big property owner. By this point Jack, obviously upset, stated he had died with Edwina stating that she knew because she had seen the obituaries

Creepy.

Even more so when you know that she had taken the time before the show to search through Jack’s blog, to find a post she had done & tweet it out before hand. It also shows that before the show she knew she was likely going to bring up her grandfather, to get personal maybe because she didn’t have any defence. She says she admires Jack but her behaviour says anything but.

Also because she wasn’t willing to listen she missed a vital point

Jack is anyone

Jack didn’t come from an abusive family or a family dependent on benefits. The government rhetoric is if you work hard & get on you will be fine & in the unlikely case that you do fall, the system will protect you but it doesn’t and in Jack it proves it. See Jack’s heartfelt post about what she didn’t get to say.

Next they played a clip of “On Benefits & Proud” featuring Emma & Sophie. They explain the programme made them out to be something they’re not, that the system has helped them a lot & no that it wasn’t a comfortable existence.

Yet again, Edwina interrupts “go & get a job” repeating it over & over.

She then got a massive piece of her own medicine, the girl turned around quick as a flash “gimmie a job, innit” repeating it over & over. It reminded me of some Catherine Tate sketch that I couldn’t help but be pleased to see on this occasion.

Question 4: "Would you support or oppose new immigrants being allowed to claim benefits in the first year in the UK?" 76% oppose

Weirdly there was applause from the audience. Often there has been, in the same way as with benefit claimants a lot of stereotyping & myths surrounding immigration issues which people believe including those on benefits. Often pitted against each other, some benefit claimants believe that the reason that they can’t find a job is due to immigration.

Owen Jones brought up points about bankers, tax avoidance & the stereotyping of immigrants & the good that they have done for this country is often over looked.

I think the issue of immigration needed to be on a separate show (which Channel 5 are apparently going to do) as it felt squeezed on to the end, they didn’t have enough panellists to have a proper debate or the time & like with welfare it is yet another issue that has been a used as scapegoat topic.

The fact that they presented facts at the start of the programme was uplifting, I think it is truly disturbing how many programmes are aired with no reference to the actual facts of matter but instead just help perpetuate myths further.

There wasn’t enough time to address everything in the detail that it needed to be. A 45 minute show can’t undo the countless months of government opinion, tabloid “news” & benefit bashing tv, much more is needed to get to that point. People didn’t understand or want people like Katie Hopkins & Edwina Curie up there but the fact of the matter is it’s exactly people like Katie & Edwina that are helping perpetuate myths further because they either do not care about the people affected or that they don’t understand that things that they are annoyed about are myths or don’t represent the majority. When you put people like Katie & Edwina on a show like this against people that know their facts, they show themselves up to be the narrow minded people that they are….as long as people can speak that is.

Fleetstreetfox’s article on her experience

Owen Jone’s article on his experience

Evolution of benefit tv

In recent years there seems to have been a greater focus on programming that covers topics that involve illness, disability & social deprivation.

It’s not a new phenomenon, these types of programs have always popped up from time to time & it’s well known that what the media shows us of these times may not be the reality but often will instead show the attitudes of society.

I’m very divided on these shows, I love documentaries, I will watch documentaries that are controversial & opposite even to my beliefs. The reason why, is that I firmly believe that the instant we cut ourselves off from knowledge, from the possibility that we may be wrong, we will never learn anything new.

I know that some people didn’t like the way that these shows had been filmed, I know these ‘shows’ have ranged vastly from benefit bashing tv made solely for entertainment to valuable insights to what the disabled & disadvantaged are facing at that time but also the public’s perception.

Unfortunately through over reporting of certain issues, certain sections of the media have given the false impression that fraud is rife, that there needs to be a crackdown on the ‘wave’ of benefit cheats but ‘real’ disabled people will always be protected. Unfortunately there is also a further section of society that believe that benefits should only be given to the ‘housebound’ because if people can get out of the house then why don’t they get a job? People don’t understand how exhausting it is to function as a disabled person & that no two are alike. They look at the surface & no deeper.

I know that some didn’t like Channel 4 referring to Paralympic athletes as ‘Superhuman’. It has unintentionally, to a degree resulted in people becoming more misguided, believing that Paralympic athletes have got ‘passed’ their disabilities because they were just more determined to succeed. Whereas in reality these Paralympians rely heavily on support behind the scenes & benefits to get them where they are. And that it’s not because one simply tries harder but more that a disability can effect many individuals, in many ways & not even to mention the fact that disabled people may not want to do athletics but instead may be a talented writer or artist. I still however think they are awesome for what they do.

I really enjoyed The Last Leg, the hilarity & stupidity of things. I loved how the show tried to engage with people with the show’s “Is it ok ?” questions such as “Is it ok to punch their friend in a wheelchair if he’s a n00b ?”.

Then you have 999, What’s Your Emergency, that highlighted beautifully how much strain the ambulance service is under & how much more it will be in the future due to the significant NHS & welfare cuts which will mean that even more people will likely fall through the net.

But unfortunately any good work that is done on one show can be undone on the next.

BBC’s Saints & Scroungers always shows two cases of benefit fraud to the one ‘Saint’ helping those to get the benefits they need. Although it is great that these people help in times of crisis, there is no disclaimer to explain how low the rates of benefit fraud are & that the show’s ratio is in no way representative of actual statistics.

Then you have Channel 4’s programme “Benefit Britain 1949”.

Now I’m ‘sure’ that Channel 4 were trying to show that the welfare budget can’t be carelessly cut & that people have been & are being affected by cuts detrimentally. That although the original system was much more tailored towards the individual, a good thing, it was only supporting those they deemed ‘deserving’. Unfortunately when reading peoples’ reactions to these types of programmes on Twitter, this is a theme that keeps cropping up. Unfortunately I think this show whilst trying to show why we had moved on instead gave more titbits to those that believe all the inaccuracies.

Also it was a different system to today, a different time, society isn’t the same & so consequently, it was often out of context. I also found it odd that the show split the claimants into ‘sickness’ & ‘disabled’ categories as often these go hand in hand.

 Yes, it did not help matters that the sickness claimant came across as little miss gobby, very rude & aggressive, hardly the average claimant but this may have come across a lot worse due to editing. However I can not stress how much my heart sank when I saw how people with less visible illnesses were being portrayed through this women.

It’s a shame that they didn’t chose someone else that could have highlighted truly how debilitating a invisible condition can be, as this is something that it seems the general public fail to understand.

Then there was the programme ‘We Pay Your Benefits’ which saw tax payers following claimants to more or less ‘judge’ what they feel is acceptable for people to buy & do using their benefits. People now have obstinate objections to people having mobile phones, internet & family pets. These previously weren’t seen as a luxury with the exception of probably family pets but people seemed to understand that people mostly had family pets before becoming unemployed & understood they were a key part of the family & a massive comfort. Also mobile phones & internet were seen as a necessity & now people believe that they are a luxury. It seems so illogical in this day & age where mobile phones & internet are such an integral part in life that people can think this way. I found it sad that people seem to have lost sight that the system we have supports the people in our society who need it the most, that it is there for them in case the worse did happen & that fraud is low.

And finally we have Channel 4’s ‘Benefit Street’ which if you were to believe was typical representation of people claiming benefits, which by the looks of Twitter a lot did, the majority of claimants would be committing benefit fraud, shoplifting & growing cannabis in their spare room to pay the bedroom tax. There were death threats after the show on social media & the whole filming of the show lacked responsibility. However it did highlight how you can’t just simply beat people with a rod & expect them to change, people need opportunities & the right help, but also some people just won’t change, that’s human nature.

The second episode showed immigration in the UK. It highlighted the racism & the inaccurate beliefs like they can earn £2,500 a day. However it also showed how immigrates without permission to work are so easily exploited & how when they report this to the police, they fear major retaliation but many people on social networking sites again didn’t see this, instead fixated on inaccuracies.

The third episode followed a young family with children. It portrayed a young couple that seemed to struggle with parenting. Its not a surprise that the kids behaviour was challenging when given a sugar coated cereal at midnight, with one parent telling the other to f**k themselves & ‘Fungi’ & other drunken idiots outside the front door creating a bad influence.  But because of the way this documentary was filmed & because a proportion of society that seems to think if they witness one thing happening on TV, that this some how means that this is representative of everybody in the same situation. Just because a child has either a single parent or young parents does not mean that they’re not going to bring up their children correctly & the rest of parents out there have just as much chance of messing up the child’s up bringing or not as anyone else.

The episode did also show that the couple was trying to improve their child’s behaviour, although I doubt how much of the public remembered that as much & a later article stated that the couple have learning difficulties which isn’t mentioned in the show.

I understand why people are upset about about these “documentaries”, some are upset that documentaries on these topics happen at all, others are upset that a valuable opportunity to highlight a issue has been lost in favour of being exploitive & creating “entertainment” instead of a documentary. In these cases they usually lack the full facts, are shown out of context & people within the disabled community face the backlash as a consequence.

However if we don’t discuss these issues we will never move forward but the public needs to be more aware that it is impossible to produce a doumentary that isn’t bias in some way because the individual is bias & that viewers should show more common sense & take these shows with a pinch of salt. It is also up to film makers to always maintain a level of detachment in making a documentary & to make sure, as much as possible, that the topic is portrayed in a true & balanced light.

I think there were many failings in making Benefit Street, particularly the disclosure of the actual street name which made these people more of a target so much so that a number of the residents have been moved. Also that it was made by an outside third party company, that they obviously lost control over it but they had responsibility to air it or not.

With the airing of Benefit Street it has shown that certain sections of the media have become so toxic over the subject of welfare but this is only allowed to continue because people blindly believe in these misrepresentations.  If people on benefits & the disabled were instead an individual, in certain countries I have no doubt that they would be pulled up on slander or for liable way before now.

The fourth episode airs tonight to be followed by a final episode & TV debate which is supposed to let the participants have their say unfortunately we will have to wait to see if this is a intelligent discussion or if this becomes just more viewing fodder.

It has taken me a while to write this as I hadn’t intended on writing this much in the beginning but have been adding to it little by little as more and more shows have been produced. Originally it was supposed to be on the first ones I watched but as time goes on there seems to have been an increase in this type of programming & I thought it interesting to note the effect of all these shows combined . With this increase it seems like certain sections of the public have lost sight that the fraud rates are low & that this system is in place to assist in times of need, as it should be. They seem content on judging on face value & not realising they don’t have the full facts at hand, how would you like this if it was done to you?

Go back & do it again! The Conservative party conference

So just in case you haven’t been fortunate enough to escape to a distant land or planet or you haven’t been sticking your fingers in your ears with a blindfold on & have being going ” La la la, I can’t here you” you will be aware that the Conservative party conference finished this week.

There have been announcements & leaked documents & to say their ‘policies’ have been hastenly rushed seems like the understatement of the century. It’s like they were doing their homework last minute on the bus whilst gigging with their friends, planning to pick on the vulnerable kid at break, whilst making sure they snatch any treats from any of the other kids.

So out of the array of topics that came out just before the conference & during.

1.The Mirror - Working for benefits

The conservatives seemed to have discarded the persona a little while ago that we are all in this together, leaning more towards the principle that there are whole groups that are just undeserving.
This seems to extend especially to those claiming jobseekers allowance, that they are content to ‘languish’ on benefits & that no one wants to get a job.

So they have proposed that to get JSA claimants off benefits & into a job & to stop the ‘Something for nothing culture’, claimants will undertake 30hrs a week on a community work scheme on top of searching for a job.

But the real reason for this is to appease the proportion of society that has the belief that it is one big party living on benefits & that the majority have no interest in looking for a job, whereas in fact its the exact opposite.

I can see this hindering people with disabilities who claim jobseekers. Will there be flexibility in the scheme? & how are people going to be available for job interviews as most would be scheduled for between 9-5.

On this blog Where’s the benefit they have highlighted many people that were claiming other benefits, have been pushed on to JSA despite being in no fit state to work may now be forced to undergo unsuitable treatment or risk losing their benefits.

And just in case you want to complain, there are plans to attempt to withdraw from the Europen Convention on Human Rights, with proposals of new anti-union laws.

2. The Telegraph - Human whatsits?

In the Telegraph, it further explains the Government’s reasons from withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. I can understand how the Government & the public don’t want dangerous criminals in the country & they want them removed but my concern would be whilst they’re there, will they withdraw other rights for joe public? As with the possible new anti-union laws.

3. The guardian - Plant what?

So just before the conference Mr Osbourne stated that “He doesn’t want to be at the forefront of tackling climate change”. This seems to be because Osbourne believes that other countries should also contribute their own share towards alleviating the impact of climate change. I agree but instead of continuing to do the responsible thing, it seems to be more along the lines of “Well they’re not picking up their rubbish, so why should we?”

This isn’t even approaching the real issue, that the living wage is too low & the profit made on energy too high. Personally I would find it more logical to negotiate fairer energy prices but I have the sneaking suspicion that this wouldn’t be as ‘profitable’ for certain members of society.

But on an important point we need to do what we can to be more responsible with the energy we use & the way we provide it. The Earth does go through natural cycles of climate change, it has done through out its history but we are accelerating this one significantly & we must modify our behavior to be able to leave the planet to further generations for them to appreciate it & not to have a harsher existence brought on through our actions.

4. The Daily Mail - there are no words

So I read this……

There has been a green paper leaked that has set out a “Thermal Reduction Initiative” which would be a 9% duty set on champagne sold in public places. According to the paper, chilled champagne adds on average an additional 0.5% to a bar’s carbon footprint. (& no I did not check this one!! but their stats have been awful so don’t take it on face value)

This IS apparently being pushed as an environmental initiative even though it won’t include Prosecco or Cava even though these also are best served chilled.

My brain further couldn’t believe what it was reading when apparently the Lib Dems had taken the energy to lobby to exempt Pomagne & Babycham!

Now whilst making sure to wear my most serious face, this isn’t an environmental measure as it would include every chilled wine & such, this is just for publicity because of what happened with the pastry tax. I would love to know why the Lib Dems put in all that effort to get Pomagne & Babycham exempt, I would assume that its either because it aided the Lib Dems cause in some way or someone has a real liken for it!

When reading these types of stories, you cant help but think that if they put this much effort into this, why aren’t significant policy changes that affect vulnerable people being thoroughly tested to ensure the smallest amount of people fall through the cracks, unfortunately it probably just comes down to profit.

5. The Guardian - Why aren’t YOU celebrating suffering?

This I find disgusting. Leaked documents seem to show that IDS was trying to find a way of making it even more difficult for sick & disabled people to claim benefits. He was also trying to see if he could put in place additional secondary legislation without the need to go through Parliament to give Jobcentres more powers to sanction people.

The article also goes on to explain how the DWP has had its ‘celebration’ week of new tougher sanctions indefinitely suspended.

I find this both alarming & disturbing that they were going to ‘celebrate’ cutting peoples money. I also find it disturbing that he was trying to circumvent Parliament.

It seems that as long as the people that could carry some of the burden don’t, the vulnerable will continue to carry much more of a disproportional share.

So many different benefits & services have been affected. With it being falsely implied that something is the majority, like most claimants are content languishing on benefits & that they get payed exorbitant amounts of money, whereas instead its a very small minority.

I just wish more than anything else that people wouldn’t read or watch something & take it on face value. The spread of inaccurate figures & facts just breeds ignorance.

I have seen & heard so many discussions & comments that include “I know someone who knows someone thats a cheat” or ” There’s someone in my street that’s perfectly capable of working” & this frustrates the disabled community immensely.

Because more often than not they don’t, often it is a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the individuals disability or entitlement. You don’t know what goes on when they step through their door, taking painkillers, resting, vomiting & such.

It also doesn’t help with the propaganda fed by certain areas of society making people believe that benefits are too high, whereas in fact wages are too low.

Just remember, to get the complete picture you must read as much as you can from as many sources as you can. Once you block your mind to the possibility that you are wrong, you will never learn anything new.

And to finish this post (thank god conferences aren’t every week, this took many breaks & many days) the Conservatives have been doing a #sharethefacts about how their existing policies have been & their new polices will help people but through out the conference, the only #sharethefact tag i could find appropriate to sum up the conference was this……….