Shameful Society

[Griffin NoName]

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/supreme-court-rejects-former-ballerinas-appeal-for-basic-right/

I am upset by a Supreme court ruling where a disabled woman has had her night care removed. She needs help to use the toilet during the night and Kensington and Chelsea council were supplying that but have now said she can't have it any longer. She appealed and it got turned down. The court ruled that the council's responsibility was only to her safety and the fact that she would have to lay in soiled paddy pants all night was irrelevant. I find this disgusting.

There were five judges invloved, four men and one woman. The female judged ruled in the woman's favour which makes me think there's a gender issue - men and women regarding such an issue very differently. Can it be that only women recognise how disgusting it is to lay in one's own shit all night?

Human rights? More like animal rights.  

The financial cuts here are having all sorts of awful effects and it is the most vulnerable who are being most affected to the point where I am ashamed of what is going on in the UK. It seems that basic human dignity loses out every time. I don't disagree that cuts are needed, but my priority list differs so wildly with the governments that I am begining to feel quite horrified.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Animal rights?

If you tried to keep puppies or kittens cooped up, walking in their own excrement, you'd be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Animals have >>more<< rights, these days that old/sick/not-perfect/slightly-off-of-center people do.

There are whole armies of folk championing the puppies and kitties...

.. but few and far championing those who might need a wee bit'o help now and again.

Disgusting?  I wish it were only >>that<< bad.

I got an e-mail the other day (which I deleted) whining about the "gub'ment waste" on "fat druggies"....! ...  seriously, what is >wrong< with these people?

When did society get so selfish?

And when did being selfish become a "christian moral position"?

I'm sorry to hear about that poor woman's plight.  Hopefully, the news paper bit will get someone who can, to do something.

[Griffin NoName]

If you tried to keep puppies or kittens cooped up, walking in their own excrement, you'd be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Good point. Once again, the law is an ass.

Hopefully, the news paper bit will get someone who can, to do something.

The item was relegated to a tiny paragraph hidden in the depths of the Guardian - the Murdoch shit has been filling the front page and several pages thereafter - despite the ruling likely to cause councils across England to follow suit affecting hundreds of thousands of elderly/disabled.

I've been trying to decide which is worse, hacking victims' relatives phones, or treating people worse than animals

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I've been trying to decide which is worse, hacking victims' relatives phones, or treating people worse than animals

Jail time for each of those responsible, would be an excellent start.  Lawsuits for damages for these people only justifies what they did:  "see?  It was worth it! Look at all this attention!"

<gaaah>

In the case of those uncaring and selfish councils?  I'd do this:  lock them in a single room with no toilet facilities, apart from adult diapers.  Then, the only food you give them to eat is bran flakes and salads...  for a week....

... see how they like it.

[Opsa]

I am having a very hard time seeing how letting this woman lie in her excrement all night is safe for her. What are they thinking?!

[Griffin NoName]

I think it is safe because as long as she doesn't attempt to get out of bed she won't fall over. Falling over seems to be what they worry about.

[pieces o nine]

Grif, your story initially reminded me of the husband and brother-in-law of a former co-worker. There does seem to be something wrong with some [men's] minds regarding common sense and basic kindness.

The first time she was (finally) persuaded to leave their baby-going-on-toddler daughter for an outing, they assured her that they had everything under control. She returned to find the two men deeply engrossed in a televised football game. At some point the baby had needed a diaper change, but neither man felt up to it (plus, football game on the tv, duh,) so they stood her between their two chairs, each holding her upright by an arm, feeling quite proud of themselves for their consideration  in 'not letting her sit down and make a bigger mess for the wife to clean up'.

The council members in your link seem to have a similar disconnect. 

[Griffin NoName]

Ugh! Silly. Poor child.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Grif, your story initially reminded me of the husband and brother-in-law of a former co-worker. There does seem to be something wrong with some [men's] minds regarding common sense and basic kindness.

The first time she was (finally) persuaded to leave their baby-going-on-toddler daughter for an outing, they assured her that they had everything under control. She returned to find the two men deeply engrossed in a televised football game. At some point the baby had needed a diaper change, but neither man felt up to it (plus, football game on the tv, duh,) so they stood her between their two chairs, each holding her upright by an arm, feeling quite proud of themselves for their consideration  in 'not letting her sit down and make a bigger mess for the wife to clean up'.

The council members in your link seem to have a similar disconnect. 

Oh.  My.   

That's child abuse! Seriously, making a small child stand in her undeveloped feet for as long as a feetball match?  Nevermind the dirty-diaper thing...

[pieces o nine]

Oh.  My.   

That's child abuse! Seriously, making a small child stand in her undeveloped feet for as long as a feetball match?  Nevermind the dirty-diaper thing...

I hadn't thought about that incident in years, until I read Grif's story. I began typing with the mindset we had back when it happened:  silly men! you just can't leave them alone!   Halfway through I re-evaluated it from a more enlightened perspective and I thought about how awful it was that he was so insensitive to his own infant daughter, just because the Packers were on.

Then I remembered her indulgent chuckle -- the same one I'd heard from married women all my life when discussing their husbands' 'manly' ineptitude with the children and I began to wonder if it masked rage they couldn't even admit to themselves, or if both parties in such marriages (deliberately-?-) flubbed the tasks traditionally assigned to the other gender to reassure themselves and the other, or if it was some of both.

At any rate, I hope that girl grew up to marry a young man who either came into the relationship with a more enlightened attitude towards children, or was able to learn fast when required to (!). I hope such callousness is no longer considered normal and cute, but I don't know.

Now we need to expand the work to the same mentality where it affects those outside one's immediate family, as in the story Grif related.   

[Roland Deschain]

There's an awful lot of cases like this that don't even get heard about in public. My nan was virtually bed-ridden near the end of her life, and needed care. My mum stopped working to care for her, and my brother and I used to sit in with her regularly at night to keep her company, as her bedroom was upstairs, not to mention me being the one mostly helping her onto the commode at night. As a young teen, it wasn't what I wanted to do, but she was family, and as such deserved our care and attention. Seeing how big a difference these seemingly small things made to her quality of life, I just cannot imagine what that poor woman in the OP, and the thousands like her around the country, must be going through. Not everyone has the benefit of family members to help them out, and as such the state MUST provide for them. When a country fails to do something as fundamental as caring for its elderly in a respectful manner, it fails as a country.

[Griffin NoName]

I'm glad you have brought this topic up again, Roland. Yes, you are right, that case was the tip of the iceburg. I despair of the way we treat our elderly.

I am currently incensed by the Welfare Bill that's going through parliament. Under the guise that the disabled and sick people are all fraud's, and in the climate of cuts to pay for bankers' bonuses (sic), the govt. is taking money away from the most vulnerable in society. There is already a rise in the number of homeless. And the so called benefit cheats (yes there are some but in truth the numbers are low, something the govt. never spells out) ie. the disabled, are getting beaten up on the streets.  

And don't get me started on the Health Bill. 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

... meh.   

Why is it, the Uber Richt (never right) crowd on both sides of the pond, are so obsessed with.... "welfare cheats"?

Are we not both participants of Wealthy Countries, in that we may easily afford to warehouse a few cheats, in order to give real and lasting benefit to Those In Need?

Who gives a rat's fart in a septic tank, if there be a few wastrels here or there?   Can we not afford it?  

Answer:  yes, yes we can-- for that is a minuscule price to pay, to ensure that those in our societies who Really Need Help, are easily able to get Said Help without climbing Mt Rushmore to get it.

It sickens me to see the Uber Selfish Attitude of these Uber Richt-wing zealots-- what is worse?  The majority of the politicos carping this attitude are also Uber Wealthy...

.... <gag>

[Griffin NoName]

Exactly Bob.

Benefit fraud runs at 0.5% I think. They should regard it as a lost leader !

The real problem is that the Bill will stop benefits to current cliamants _ for example someone in a wheelchair currently eligable for independant living allowance will no longer be elligable, same for deaf, blind, mute etc, - all who rely on benefit for mobility,aids etc all of whihch cost over and above normal living costts.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Exactly Bob.

Benefit fraud runs at 0.5% I think. They should regard it as a lost leader !

The real problem is that the Bill will stop benefits to current cliamants _ for example someone in a wheelchair currently eligable for independant living allowance will no longer be elligable, same for deaf, blind, mute etc, - all who rely on benefit for mobility,aids etc all of whihch cost over and above normal living costts.

Such things sicken me--

-- especially of you consider the  people behind the various bills, are so rich, they do not even realize that bread comes pre-sliced in plastic bags....

... never having shopped for such mundane things a food in their entire lives-- they have "people" for that, right?

"Let them eat cake"

Apropos here, is it not?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

- Compassion requires empathy.
- Empathy requires a level of relation with the subject in question.

Many of the big wigs out there stop at the first point, they are socio/psychopaths and cannot feel empathy for anyone.

The rest are so removed that consider the poor/suffering as far as other species in other fantasy planet they rarely interact with. I remember when Katrina struck that while FEMA's boss was drinking whisky with his buddies and Dubya was on fancy fundraiser dinners he was talking about so and so friend of his who lost his beach front mansion to the storm and how he would help him and those like him. I don't remember the exact words but it was clear that his poor, poor millionaire friend deserved help while the people on the roofs of New Orleans weren't his concern. I suspect that they are low on empathy to begin with and then they filter out those outside their circle of friends. Once that is done is so easy to criticize those 'living on handouts' etc.

[pieces o nine]

This discussion reminds me of a party I was invited to back in my 20's.  (alla y'alla will be STUNNED to learn that I was not invited back to that particular group again -- ha!)  But I digress.

So I was at this party in which a very blonde, very well-maintained second wife (also in her early 20's) drifted over and breathlessly began a conversation about how disgusting welfare programs are, and how Democrats *must* be voted out of office so welfare programs could be shut down, permanently.  I smiled my sharkiest smile and agreed with her that it was a perennial issue, adding that under Democratic regimes welfare programs are crafted to benefit the poorest citizens, while under Republican regimes welfare programs are crafted to benefit the wealthiest citizens. Dismay clouded her perfectly tweezed brow, leaving her speechless until her husband (whom I knew through work) came over. She clutched his arm and repeated what I had just said, sounding very much like an eight-year-old complaining to the teacher that another girl had called her a "meanie" or something.

Her husband turned to me and smiled a very pleased smile,  (he seemed to genuinely like intelligent women in the workplace, but prefer absolute morons in his private life, although, once again, I digress)  raised his glass to me in a little salute, and turned back to his trophy to tell her that what I had said was true.  "But, but, but," she sputtered, "we're  not on welfare!!!"  He smiled at me again, nodded once, then turned and steered her gently to a more suitable conversation partner, chuckling a little as he told her that business does, indeed, strongly benefit from "welfare" when its friends are in power.

I was left with a somewhat pyrrhic victory, as even his ready understanding of reality had little effect on his politics and actions. I would also imagine that his non-working first wife, that non-working second wife (and whatever non-working wife he is up to now) also still steadfastly vote against  programs to benefit people 'beneath' themselves, citing their 'laziness,' their 'cheating,' and their 'sense of entitlement' while also seeing to it that their own benefits are *never* decreased by any amount, for any reason, because they need  them.  It is depressing.

[Roland Deschain]

"Let them eat cake" isn't apropos, "Let them eat grass" is far more accurate a statement here. I do get angry when I see someone blatantly fiddling the benefits system, but this is nothing compared to the fiddling that goes on in the highest levels of government, banking, and business. When you look closely at quite a few of the laws meant to stop the richest escaping taxes, you see that it's not those who suffer; it's the people who have worked hard all their lives who do this (not saying all those with lots of money don't deserve it, as i'm generalising).

As a case in point, my father had an accident around 10 or so years ago. To cut a rather long story short, he ended up with a settlement payout from the other driver's insurance company, which went towards a bungalow large enough to cope with him (which also needed a lot of work to accommodate his needs), paying back the legal aid he'd received (you have no idea how much that was!), paying a lot of medical bills (apparently you pay back some if you get money), with the relatively small amount left over being invested in a trust fund, the interest from which pays his living costs (they're reasonably high due to his disability).

Now, when Gordon Brown was chancellor, he waged a "war" on tax cheats, and pushed through in one of his budgets new requirements for paying tax on exactly the sort of trust fund that my dad had. Not being uber rich, he had no option but to pay a large amount of tax each year on his investments, over and above the usual requirements, but for someone who is genuinely rich, there are no end to ways around this. I have nothing against the principle of it, but it is the people who genuinely rely on their savings who lose out. Even though it meant more money for dad's financial adviser due to more consultations in the year, he was still very angry at the chancellor for bringing the law in, as he knew exactly the sort of person it would hit the most.

I know my view is seemingly quite a subjective one, but the point stands. It's almost always those most in need who suffer.

[Griffin NoName]

Raising the bar for who counts as sick/disabled enough to qualify for benefits does nothing to stop fraudsters. It just means genuine people in need are denied it. The blind, the deaf, people in wheelchairs no longer count as disabled by the Welfare bill just passed. How utterly disgusting. And how many of the general public know about this? Or care? On a slightly different tack, a lot of seriously ill people are being found fit for work, even terminally ill people. One person, terminally ill, even died while waiting for an appeal process.

Sorry - I am just spitting anger. I am sooooo cross. I think this current govt. is truly evil.

[Roland Deschain]

I'm with you there, Griffin. Who was it who said that it is better for 10 guilty people to walk free than for 1 innocent person to be imprisoned? Well, something like that. The principle is exactly the same here. I'd rather the cheats prosper than the needy suffer. There's a limit, of course, but to be responsible for another human's suffering while being in a position to do something about it, yet not use your power, is to disassociate yourself from decent society.