"Remember when teachers, nurses, doctors, police, firefighters, ambulance personnel and all our soldiers crashed the stock market, wiped out banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no tax? No, me neither. Please show your support for the public sector strikers"

I am alive today because of the talent, passion and dedication of hundreds of medical professionals who have saved my life on a number of occasions and improved my life on countless others. I’m educated enough to write this because of an incredibly committed learning support assistant and a team of fantastic teachers who never allowed me to give up no matter how hard living with my disability sometimes was.

On Wednesday thousands of public sector workers will go on strike. MPs and journalists will condemn them and call for you to do the same.  If, like the media you are unwilling to give them your support this is why you should at least give them your respect.

Presumably when people go to hospital, send their kids to school, or call out the emergency services to attend to the crisis they or their loved ones are in the midst of, they would like qualified, conscientious, hardworking individuals, with talent and dedication to their profession to turn up. It's quite straight forward if the government keep moving the goal posts for public sector workers - nurses, doctors, physiotherapists, ambulance personnel, the police force, fire fighters and teachers, the quality of service you get from those people will drop rapidly.

Sure there are some council workers, some headteachers, some people at the very top of the education authority for instance who are picking up massive wages and who have for years been able to look forward to very generous pensions at the end of their careers at huge expense to the taxpayer. These reforms however will not hit those people anyway near as hard as it will young people entering those professions now, people who have happily accepted a two year pay freeze and accept that they are unlikely to earn anymore than 25k a year, no matter how many years they stay dedicated to the job, even after taking on extra responsibility and shouldering the kind of stress most averagely paid private sector workers can't begin to comprehend. 

For years teachers have had to put up with the government telling them how and what to teach, constantly restricting the freedom they have to god forbid work out what the kids they teach need for themselves. Nurses are constantly harangued in the media when mistakes are made and bad care provided but when do our national newspapers celebrate the incredible commitment and hard work of those who are saving and improving lives on a daily basis? Last weekend we were told that the government have decided that GPs are no longer responsible enough to honestly assess the condition of their patients in regards to their ability to work. Knowing your patients well is a problem according to this government. I’m sure I’ll have no problem summarising 18 years of medical history and the impact of over 50 operations I’ve had to a government official who knows nothing about me. I can imagine those suffering acute stress or depression will be relishing the opportunity to discuss in depth the painful and traumatic experiences that prevent them from functioning properly with well, Tom, Dick or Harry.     

Undermined, disrespected, patronised and criticised, these people just have to get on with it, we expect them to, we demand that they do, we take for granted that they will.

There are no bonuses per 100 lives these people save, or per 100 children a teacher brings from below the national average to above it. Teachers spend hours after the working day planning, marking and assessing having spent all day providing a safe, secure, educational and enriching environment for 10 times the amount of kids the average parent has to contend with at the weekend. Those in the NHS go home regularly knowing that no matter how hard they work, they may be unable to help a patient improve their quality of life or prevent them losing their lives, having spent the day on their feet knowing one small mistake on their part, regardless of however many lives they have improved or saved could result in a patient's death and utter devastation for their family. 

Yes they choose these professions, but they have partners and children themselves which should always come first and the government are making it harder and harder for such people to justify the long, stressful hours they work to the families who hardly see them. The pension schemes went a long way to doing that, parents knowing they wouldn't burden their kids in the future when they reach old age, knowing they would have money and time to support their offspring and grandchildren in later life making up for the time they had to spend away from them in their childhood.

What incentive would a caring, hardworking young woman have to become an NHS nurse now, 3 years of university required to earn 20k a year, wiping bums, cleaning up blood, urine, vomit, tolerating abuse from grief stricken relatives and watching people die instead of going to work in the private sector, knowing her hard work will be recognised and rewarded with bonuses, increased holiday allowances and where extra responsibility will equal greater career progression and salary increase? 

We are always hearing how the private sector and its workers are so important as they’re what drive the economy and increase the country’s wealth. That is all that is important of course and keeping people alive, safe and educated well enough to work doesn’t really matter that much.

  When hospitals are staffed purely by the immigrant workers already frequently abused for their trouble, who are qualified but struggle with the language required to provide the most effective service for patients. When your kid's learning disability goes unnoticed or ignored by numerous of teachers only willing to do the bare minimum they are paid to do. When you call an ambulance out for your elderly parent struggling to breathe and get a man in a green uniform turn up, shrug his shoulders and tell you he's only qualified to drive the white vans. Then will you tell the completely selfless few who have tolerated this slap in the face from the government to stay in the public sector, to simply pack it in if they're not happy? 

In other countries those who save lives, care for the sick and educate our children are valued and respected, in ours they are told to stop whinging and get used to the real world! Lets hope those from other countries flock to Britain to come save our public services because in a few years your children and grandchildren will depend on them.

I completely accept and understand that the state of the economy dictates money has to be saved and public spending decreased. I'd wholeheartedly back the introduction on salary caps and pension caps on those in bureaucratic roles being grossly overpaid for the work they do.  Once again the government have shirked from addressing the areas where that small minority are benefiting hugely and unjustly from the system, instead to create a proposal that indiscriminately targets and punishes those far from living a life of luxury (sound familiar?). A lazy, badly thought through decision which causes unfair detriment to the over worked, undervalued key public sector workers, getting their hands dirty on a daily basis, for modest reward and recognition. Something of which our politicians should be utterly ashamed.

Of course they won't be, the majority, having only ever enjoyed private health care and private education, will have no concept of the incredible work these people do and the invaluable benefit it has to those less privileged who rely on them.

As our public services are obliterated by our government, talented professionals driven out of the NHS and state school jobs they were previously steadfastly committed to, we as patients, pupils and general members of the public will suffer from a dearth of people who care. Those who can afford the luxury of private health care and private education will be benefitting directly from the surge of fantastic people still dedicated to improving lives but desperately seeking some respect flocking to work in private hospitals and private schools.

If you don’t believe that that is fair, please support our public sector workers strike action on Wednesday and make the title of this post your Facebook status. They aren’t just fighting for their pensions, they are fighting for their respect and your right to be treated and educated by those who care the most.

Saying What You Mean and Meaning What You Say - (The one about PIP)

I’m a big fan of words. Bloody useful things they are. I particularly like the English Language because it’s full of under-used words that are bloody lovely to say and write and because they are under-used it’s quite easy to select one of these words, whack it into a sentence and make your statement that little bit more interesting, distinctive, or unique.

 I think it’s really important to read as much as you can and always ask somebody when they use a word you’re unfamiliar with, what that word means if you don’t know. Increasing your vocabulary increases your ability to better express yourself, it’s as simple as that. There is no shame in not knowing what a word means when you hear it, only in not bothering your arse enough to make the effort to find out for yourself so you know the next time. It’s impossible to say how many words even exist in the English Language so it’s unreasonable to expect us to know the meaning of every word knocking about the place. It’s a bit like asking an MP to recall a list of all the times they’ve deliberately told a whopping pie of the pork variety or Russell Brand the first name of all his pre-Perry dalliances. You can’t do it, it’d be ridiculous.

Whenever I write, if the opportunity arises, I will endeavour to use a more interesting word in place of a boring word, to hopefully increase the enjoyment the person reading, gets from my ramblings. It’s important to make sure, of course, that I make sure the replacement word means the same as the original word I used, and that the entire sentiment of the sentence it is in, is improved or at least preserved. Massive problems occur when word bandits, presumably in effort to make themselves appear more intelligent go about firing words out willy nilly when they have no sodding clue what they mean. It’s important to say that efficient use of long or unusual words is not necessarily an indication of intelligence. Lots of very silly people, in possession of rather absurd logic use big words, and some very insightful and particularly emotionally intelligent people struggle to express themselves. What it is, indisputably, is fecking problematic when people say things they don’t mean or mean things they don’t say because they haven’t correctly considered the word they have used and the meaning of it.

I like the word discombobulating. It’s lovely to say, wonderfully camp and theatrical in my opinion but I can’t just shove it in any old place I fancy, just because it sounds good. I can’t say I’ve gone out without a coat or brolly whilst it’s discombobulating outside so I am now drenched through to my bones. It sounds nicer, BUT IT’S NOT RIGHT! The bleeding rain has pissed all over me, not fecking confusion, perplexity or bewilderment, the bleeding effing rain.  It is not appropriate to replace raining, with discombobulating. It is not ok, ok? If I were to do this, it would be incredibly discombobulating.

Most of the time, of course, the odd incorrect use of a word has no great consequence, it is annoying, but nobody dies. Usually. However it is important for people providing goods and services to express themselves clearly when they are advertising those goods and services in exchange for money. That is why bodies such as The Advertising Standards Authority exist, to make sure essentially, that people can’t pedal utter bollocks to you and con you out of your money. You can buy Just for Men and if you use it properly it will get rid of your grey hairs. It will not make your immediately more handsome and irresistible to women or discombobulate women into mistaking you with George Clooney. The advert can discombobulate you into assuming that will happen but they can’t SAY it will do that. You might still be just an unfortunate looking bastard and an A grade tool but you will be one without grey hairs. Your hair is all they will be able to claim they can help you address, they can’t claim it will make you better in bed, lengthen the size of your man hose, improve your earning capabilities or make you more charismatic. If they said that it would do that stuff, they would be lying and that, my friends, is really really naughty.

Our government don’t have to answer to the ASA but they do have to answer to us, the general public, tax payers (yes disabled tax payers do exist and are not in fact extinct like dildos, dodos!) the people they serve, the people they debate and legislate on behalf of. We are entitled to know what the hell it is we are paying for, voting for, supporting and using. If Dave and friends decided to use public money to say fund a weekly paint balling session with their best buddies, but told us it was actually necessary for ensuring the country’s safety from invasion or attack, that would be wrong. You would never get the defence secretary using tax payers or voters money to fund holidays or imaginary job roles for his best pal. That would never happen. (Oh wait a second, the rules for us and the rules for them are so discombobulating, I lose track)

So why then, lots of disabled people are asking, are they allowed to replace Disability Living Allowance with something they call Personal Independence Payments?

 Disability Living Allowance, in acknowledging the massive extra costs a disabled person is likely to incur whilst managing their disability, has assessed people’s extra needs in regards to their care or mobility limitations, provided them with financial support and given them the freedom to use that money how they see fit. Trusting the people with such conditions (and those who help them deal with them) to make, incredibly, the right decisions necessary for managing and obtaining the care that they feel they need. It gave them options and choices and freedom and respect. Things, most able-bodied people are guilty sometimes of taking for granted but conversely that most disabled people value above all else and often risk their health to defend.

Personal Independence payments will assess people’s eligibility for them based on their ability to;

Plan and buy food and drink, prepare and cook food, take nutrition, manage medication and monitor health conditions, manage prescribed therapies other than medication, wash, bath and groom, manage their toilet needs and incontinence, dress and undress,  communicate with others plan and follow a journey and get around.

Apparently.

The format of the assessment doesn’t take into account a disabled person’s environment, it doesn't take into account how difficult or impossible it often is for a disabled person to access public transport. It doesn’t take into account how important socialising with others is to the mental health of all human beings, let alone disabled ones. It doesn't consider that a disabled person may need to eat food of a high nutritional value, in order to stay healthy; it doesn’t consider that sometimes non-prescribed, non-essential treatments may benefit an individual more than those deemed more conventional methods of pain management. It doesn’t consider additional responsibilities many disabled people have on top of merely staying alive and functional, such as children, jobs, bills, mortgages. It doesn’t recognise that disabled people often need mental health support even when their disability is physical. It doesn’t consider that disabled people need to have clean clothes, clean bedding, a clean environment and appearance, confidence and social skills in order to even consider themselves in a position to look for employment and that they may have great difficulty in ensuring they possess and maintain such things.

It doesn’t give them options and choices and freedom and respect. It provides the basic minimum requirements for survival, not independence. However they want to call it a Personal Independence Payment. They want to have the general public, taxpayers the people they serve, and the people they debate and legislate on behalf of believe they are improving people’s ability to take better care of themselves and obtain employment. They want to have us believe that the people who don’t meet their strict rigid formulaic criteria for it, don’t need it. That they don’t need help or support, that they should be able to live independently and maintain employment without any support.

If the economy can’t afford to help disabled people live more independent lives then please don’t tell everyone that that is what you are aiming to do. If, as a country, we can’t afford to equip disabled people with the means by which to break down their own, individual barriers to equality, don’t pretend that is what you are going to do.

I imagine that many MPs, in order to perform their jobs, maintain a manageable work/social life balance, take care of themselves and their loved ones and ensure their own sanity, require the assistance of others.

Personal assistants, nannies, housekeepers, cleaners, chauffeurs, masseurs, personal advisors, spokespeople, accountants, therapists. Are there many MPs who cope all the time, without any of this sort of assistance? Do any of them have debilitating physical or mental impairment?

Don’t insult, patronise and disrespect people by pretending that disabled people don’t need some, all of that assistance and other really important services that are being cut left right and centre, in order to manage their lives.

Otherwise shall we just do away with the meaning of words and send people kettles when they pay us for cars? Shall we not call Just For Men, Just For Men and instead  call it Looks Enhancing, Sexy Man Hair Juice?

 No, let’s say what we mean and mean what we say.

Dear Great Britain,

Nobody will ever make me feel guilty for doing stuff, for having a social life, for enjoying my life. I fight with my body, with my health, with uncertainly, with an inaccessible world, with ignorance, my own insecurities and my own better judgement on a daily basis to lead the life I do. I don’t want admiration, congratulations or sympathy for my situation, but I’m unwilling to accept condemnation or criticism for enjoying the life I’m lucky to have, for doing everything in my power to overcome whatever challenges might come my way to grasp tight hold of each and every opportunity that fate affords me.

A little less than a month after my sixth birthday I was injured in a road traffic accident, which caused the death of my dear mum and left me paralysed from the chest down. During my childhood I had to undergo numerous operations and spend long periods of time in hospital. I never learnt to swim without armbands or even to tie my shoe laces properly; I was learning how to catheterise, train my bowels and how to move my body from place to place using my fists. I never felt unlucky and I was rarely angry about the situation but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit there were times when I was so, so sad about things. There was too much to do to be sad for too long though and tears got me nowhere, sheer bloody mindedness, incessant determination made things happen. The choice was an easy one. Just deal with it and do it.

 I remember vividly the struggles I had learning to dress myself, a process I had to work on for years, starting with just my socks, a few months after the accident, a task alone that took me over half an hour the first few times. I accomplished each new necessary skill, that was in turn followed each time by a new challenge; unfurling my clawed fists to do up a button, finding the balance to place a t-shirt over my head without toppling over, rolling repeatedly from side to side to get my trousers up, learning how to put on and do up my back brace without assistance. I didn’t care how long it took me to accomplish these things, despite the embarrassment I often felt at my slow progress or the frustration of so many full hearted unsuccessful attempts, I was always going to get there, giving up wasn’t an option. Other people my age were able to dress themselves and so would I. I needed to be just like everybody else. It took until I was about 13 until I could do it all on my own, by 15, I was able to do it all myself in just under half an hour. I wasn’t proud that I could do it, I was just relieved. It was something I should have been able to do.

 I can’t do it anymore, I struggle to balance without holding onto the bed, I can’t put on my body brace on my own and I can’t pull my trousers up much higher than my knees without lying in a painful position. When I have the time, the inclination and no audience it takes me up to half an hour to pull my trousers past my twisted pelvis and over my bottom, which forms a bustle way out of line with my shoulders, themselves way out of line with each other. It breaks my heart every day that something I worked so hard to achieve is completely impossible for me now. Some days that pain is so hard to face that I only put on underwear and a vest, other days it takes me hours to put my head in the frame of mind to face the fact that I will need to ask for help. Most of the time, I ask for help immediately to get the process over with as soon as possible for acknowledging what I’m no longer able to do is sometimes so gut wrenchingly painful for me that I can’t even face leaving the room.

Then there are times when I wake up after a good sleep, ready and raring to go, so eager to enjoy the day that the difficult process of getting dressed doesn’t cross my mind, I just get on and do it. With an exciting day ahead of me, the opportunity to spend time laughing with my beautiful nephews, gossiping with my fiercely loyal mates or simply having a pint in the pub with my saint of a partner whose patience and dedication to loving me is unwavering, the difficult start to the day matters sod all. They give me strength, joy and instil in me a determination that says fuck you to anything that tries to stand in my way. I owe them my time, my will power and my commitment because they are the people who invest in me when I get too tired, too stiff, to stressed or too sad to invest in myself. There are times when I look in the mirror and hate everything I see, times when I feel nothing but contempt for a body that is always letting me down and hopelessly inadequate of fulfilling the dreams my hearts sets itself on. They always love me, all of me. None of the stuff that has the power to knock the stuffing out of me, matters one jot to them. Their love, their kindness, their acceptance of me, as I am, is often the only thing that can force me to cut myself some slack. I accept that if they love that much that I ought to at least like myself a little bit.

I don’t have to prove anything else to anyone. To people I don’t know who make judgements about me, to the media that misrepresents people like me, to a government that wants to analyse, classify and pigeon hole me. I will prove they’re wrong about me because I want to, because I can, not because I have to, not because they’ll make me feel guilty if I don’t.  I’ll carry on fighting, to laugh, to love, to live, to work when I’m healthy enough, help others when I’m able to and contribute to society the best way I can.

 I will not feel guilty or worthless when I can’t. I won’t feel angry or bitter and I won’t punish myself and the people I love, who will be the ones picking up the pieces and putting me back together again, by working my body into the ground and risking my life. When Ian Duncan Smith is spending every waking moment next to my beside when I’m in intensive care with Pneumonia then starting a new job, when David Cameron is bombing down the motorway, after taking his kids to school and before his working day to check I’m being taken care of properly, when journalists are up late at night convincing me I’m worth something and when the Tax Payers’ Alliance are fighting for my right to be heard and appreciated. Then, they can have my guilt.

My pride is my own, not for anyone else to take. I will make the best out of my life, not because I owe it to them, because I owe it to myself.

Free Cars For The Disabled Part II (some 'expert' opinions on it)

I’ve had trouble writing anything this week. Not through lack of inspiration but rather too much of it. Things I read, conversations I’ve had, have all been pretty overwhelming. Personally, I’ve had a really good week but hearing and reading about how other disabled people, who are already really struggling are going to affected by the Welfare Reform Bill has been upsetting/ frustrating/ angering. I’ve found it hard to process my thoughts and feelings into anything anybody would find interesting or useful to read and as appealing an alternative as it’s been, I’ve resisted the temptation to just post lists of expletives to summarise my mood, as I realise I already swear too much.

So whilst I’m working on something else vaguely intelligent, I thought I’d post something that couldn’t be described as that at all – still on the Motability issue – some of the comments from some of my most favourite people who read my favourite newspaper. I’ve added some short simple responses to some of them for the benefit of anyone who can’t be arsed to read my very long post on the subject.

(I saved my particular favourites from a number of different articles on the Motability Scheme, I’ve removed names, locations and dates but I can assure you they are all genuine and most likely still available online. I’ll stick them up as they are, with spelling and grammatical mistakes left in, because as much as I want to correct them, I don’t want to help any of the contributors to appear any less silly than they are)  

"You should have to prove your need to be mobile to qualify , eg disabled but in employment"

Need to be mobile? Right, so no job = no need to be mobile. Cool, let's start a programme whereby we amputate all the unecessary limbs of anybody unemployed. Including pensioners and children. They don't need them. You don't need to be mobile to do anything else in life and it's not like being mobile is an important prerequisite for acquiring a job is it?!

"I wrote on these pages a couple of days ago about this very subject and received nearly 200 thumbs down. The trouble is, the scheme is abused by the vast majority of blue badge holders. Make them all pay Road Tax, Insurance, etc. then see how many want a car. After all they are disabled not skint and if they get caught cheating the taxpayer take their benefits off them"

The scheme is abused by THE VAST MAJORITY OF BLUE BADGE HOLDERS? Well no, no it isn't actually. Many disabled people could not afford to have a car if they had to pay the road tax and insurance, that is the point. Many disabled people are in fact often skint. They usually have far greater living costs than the average able bodied person and often find it difficult or impossible to find employment because they are not physically capable or healthy enough. Sometimes they don't have jobs because they have difficulty getting around. Another point of the Motability Scheme.

"Go back to the days of the little blue invalid carriage. cant abuse the system then"

Aye, because those little blue invalid carriages were suitable for all the wide ranging, complex and very different needs of all disabled people and God forbid we allow any disabled person to drive anything other than a heap of junk. While we're at it let's go back to the days when all disabled people died prematurely, were house bound, neglected, isolated and abused. The good old days.

"If they are too disabled to work how do they afford top range cars, and if they work they should be lumped in with the rest of us...The scheme is not necessary"

Those who are too disabled to work can't afford top range cars, you have to pay an additional payment for the top of the range cars. It is a lease scheme, you are not given the car, you are lent it. You do not own the car, you have to give it back. Some disabled people who are in employment will be forking out for a PA to assist them enabling them to work and paying for mobility aids or adaptations to their houses. By the time they have been taxed and paid for all these they will have considerable less disposable cash than "the rest of" you. The scheme is absolutely necessary for this precise reason.

"I don't know how widespread this problem is, but I do know that it happens. However, without being unkind to the disabled, surely there is a way to cure this problem. First of all, remove the luxury cars from scheme. Nobody, whether able or disabled actually NEEDS a big BMW, Audi or any other "must have" vehicle. This would remove the "look at me and my posh car" brigade who like to be seen driving their relative's free car as though it's theirs. Secondly, when leasing the car, the disabled person must show their driving licence, to prove that they will be driving it. If they have a licence then they get the car under the scheme, if they do not, then although they still get the car, the tax and insurance and roadside assistance must be paid for by the people who will be getting the most use out of it"

A "must have" vehicle to a disabled person is one that is suitable for their needs. Sometimes this is a big BMW because they have a family as well as multiple mobility aids such as wheelchairs or scooters to carry around with them. Some disabled people have personal assistants or relatives who act as their full time carers who drive their Motability car because they are unable to. So we ask that PA's who are very unlikely to be on a generous wage because they are paid out of limited funds a disabled person has, pays road tax and insurance for their own car as well as the disabled person's they work for? Relatives who are full time carers recieve less than minimum wage for working often double the amount of hours because their disabled loved one is dependent upon them. Most simply cannot afford to.

"There would be far less people claiming for disability cars if all they could get was the Reliant 3 wheelers they used to drive when I was young. If its mobility they are after then give them wheelchairs and let them take the bus and save most of the £1.4 billion of taxpayers money"

I would love to be able to use the bus. If I could get to a bus stop. If when I got to one the bus was accessible. If those accessible buses ran at the usual times people need to get out and about, if all the bus drivers and general public were considerate of a disable person trying to get on the bus. If the bus routes taken by such buses were places I needed to go...

"what was wrong with the old system of using ACcars which was a 3 wheeled invalid carriage solely for the use of the disabled person and their wheelchair it would be interesting to see how many people would apply?

Everything was wrong with it. It would be interesting to see how many MPs still wanted to be MPs if we did away with the expenses system, can we do that too?

"Easy solution, let genuine applicants choose from a basic range of vehicles that should all support commercial advertising on the side of the car. Every way the tax payer wins by less costly cars being leased, less applicants because the adverts would suggest they are driving a free car and a contribution from the private sector for the advertising"

Aye, and a big sign on the side that says "Easy Target, as a disabled person I am likely to take more time than the average person to get into this car thus giving you ample opportunity to mug/assault/car jack me.

"It should be only cheap bottom of the range cars it is outrageous that expensive cars are available, give them Ford Ka's and Corsa's and nothing above that"

Once you show me how exactly I can get my smaller than average light weight rigid framed wheelchair easily in and out of a Ford Ka or Corsa, I will be delighted to take one. You can then proceed to show me how you get an elephant into and out of a fridge, Harry Fecking Houdini.

"For all those who are telling us that these motability cars don't come cheap, well they are a hell of lot cheaper than anything we can afford plus you don't pay tax or insurance and you can park it anywhere. What I still don't understand is how someone in full time employment earning 30+grand a year is entitled to one of these cheap motors"

Do you borrow your car? Does it need expensive adaptations to enable you to drive it? Would you like to pay £12.99 to RENT a dvd for a couple of days? Or would you like to pay a couple of grand to RENT a golf buggy. I can park it anywhere can I?! I'll be round to park it in the middle of your living room then. How about you pay somebody HALF your 30 grand a year wage to enable you to stay in full time employment :)

"Stopping this is one quick way the government can save some money. Many disabled people cannot drive, so having a car is unnecessary. One person I worked with told me that his brother who was diagnosed with cancer had over £333 mobility payment paid into his bank account every month even though he ran a successful business and did not need the money. Apparently it was saved for presumably other things than a car. Just because you are disabled does not mean that you should qualify for a top of the range car, which will ultimately be driven by able bodied people"

Stopping this system would cost the government huge amounts of money as many disabled people would have to stop working, thus paying tax and many others would become wholly reliant on NHS services, their local council and social services in order to stay healthy and take care of themselves.

"Simple, if they can drive give them a car for only them to use...if they can't drive don't give them a car!! The burden should be on friends and family to ferry people around who would other wise struggle on their own... "

Aye, lets make life unfeasibly difficult for the relatives of disabled people who no doubt have jobs and responsibilities of their own. Lets make a rule that if you have a disabled relative you don't need to work as long as you agree to ferry them about. The tax payer will support you all in this because it is definitely far more cost effective.

"I know people with a mobility car that just use it to take the dog for walk, what happend to the three wheeler with a single seat that use to be supplied to to these people on benifits I wonder if they would be so keen if the govenment brought them back, it would be a lot cheaper for the tax payer"

People?! You know people who do this? More than one person? A multiple number? Oh do me a favour.

Disabled people according to the "experts".

N.B The use of the word 'expert' in the title there and in the following post should not be interpreted in the usual way it is in standard English. Here it means dickheads. Just to clarify.

As evidenced by ‘The comments’ expressed online there seems to be a disturbing number of experts who read that paper, establishing opinions on disabled people based upon a neighbour/colleague/friend of a friend/mother in law’s gardener’s sister’s stepson’s dinner lady, who they believe to be cheating the system, claiming disability living allowance for non-existent ailments.  Firstly, if they are cheating the system and they aren’t in fact disabled, then they are not a disabled person. There aren’t two types of disabled people, those genuinely disabled and those pulling a fast one. There are just disabled people, the requirement of which is having a disability. There are plenty of other words you can use for people who are fraudulently claiming benefits, most of which are quicker and far more fun to say than the word ‘disabled’.

It’s as illogical as meeting a dog owner who has neglected to clear up their dog’s mess, labelling dog owners as selfish individuals and then applying the term ‘dog owner’ to anybody who owns a small pet or looks like they might. I personally find people who own guinea pigs a particularly selfish sort of dog owner. (Just me or completely bonkers?)

Secondly, just how these experts know so much about their neighbour’s/colleague’s/friend of a friend’s/mother in law’s gardener’s sister’s stepson’s dinner lady lives astounds me. I’m not sure that there’s not some covert NoTW style phone hacking shenanigans at work here. Presumably they are around in the morning when their neighbour is not being helped to get dressed by their partner or in the toilet with their colleague whilst they are not emptying their bladder with the use of a catheter. Or that from time to time they share the bed of that friend of their friend to know conclusively that they do not experience back pain so painful it stops them from sleeping on a regularly basis. As for their mother in law’s gardener’s sister’s stepson’s dinner lady, I’d be gobsmacked if she was able to keep any private details of her personal life from the knowledge of a random person she has never met before. The likelihood she has a degenerative eye condition that could leave her blind in a matter of years without having broadcast it to the entire world is practically nonexistent. It’s inconceivable that a disabled person might endeavour to keep the painful reality of their disability from you, that they may put on a brave face to go to work, or that the trips they have out with their friends can only happen on good days when they are not in horrendous pain. Disabled people certainly don’t deal with the consequences of their disability in private away from the eyes of others; they enjoy suffering as loudly and as publicly as possible don’t they?

 It may not help my chances of satisfying the neighbourhood crip-watch to use the words “check up” as a generic term to describe every hospital appointment I have to attend, but I don’t much fancy describing in great detail the intrusive procedures I have that leave me embarrassed and exhausted, to anyone. Awkward little bugger aren’t I? I could play wheelchair basketball but that wouldn’t make me any less paralysed from the chest down, it wouldn’t mean I was actually Kobe Bryant in a highly elaborate disguise. It’s quite terrifying that the same experts able to assess disability by means of super natural powers and extrasensory perception could be called for jury service at some point in their lives. Best not to leave the possibility of that kind of neighbour signing for your CSI: New York box set to chance, they’ll be on the phone to the FBI faster than you can say ballistics.

I realise there are people who say they have a severe mobility impairing disability, claim disability living allowance and are then spotted skipping about town, performing the Paso Doble down the freezer isle in the co-op or  Lionel Messi-ing their way to the top of the local 5-a-side league. These people are not disabled though, they are bloody liars. You could however do all those things and have a terminal illness and just be taking the opportunity to use the strength in your body whilst you still can, to enjoy the things you love for as long as possible. Very sadly it wouldn’t make you any less terminally ill. Disabled people, having hobbies, having relationships, going on holiday, taking their kids out, enjoying life should not have to worry about being mistaken for con-artists and benefit fraudsters. They should just be allowed to get on with living. The unpredictable pain I get as a consequence of my scoliosis (curvature of the spine) doesn’t prevent me going out with my mates and getting hideously drunk on the odd occasion, it does however make it very difficult to maintain a full-time job. I would happily swap the occasional hideous drunkenness for the ability to work full time. Unfortunately I’ve heard that regular naps and dependence on opiate based pain killers are frowned upon in most working environments these days. I’ll find a way around it though; I’ll become a rock star or something.

You see that’s another thing that a scary amount of experts who read the paper that shall not be named, feel qualified to talk about. Jobs. Or rather people who don’t have them and the reasons for that. Basically, it’s laziness, bone idleness, a lack of self respect. There are generally no other reasons why people don’t have jobs according to these experts, who are all knowledgeable on the subject. Well some people don’t have a job because they are on death’s door, that’s allowed. If you are just disabled and not on death’s door and still jobless then it is highly likely you are lazy, bone idle or lack self respect. Either that or you have diagnosed yourself with having some made up affliction in a highly calculating and conniving attempt to ensure you never have to miss an episode of Jeremy Kyle. Because, well, that is what you live for. All the while the government are handing out FREE  luxury  sport cars to you, that you let your scumbag good-for-nothing relatives drive while you sit around at home all day being disabled and laughing at those less fortunate than you who have careers and stuff. Any disabled person who thinks (delusionally) that there are any other reasons for them not having a job, are plain wrong.

Free Cars For The Disabled

One of the "luxury cars" disabled people should not be allowed to drive

Today a certain Sunday newspaper is celebrating "a victory for the tax payer" as an announcement has been made that new rules will stop disabled people from benefiting from the use of luxury cars worth up to £37,000 through a taxpayer-funded scheme. After a series of articles supposedly informing the public of the outrage that is the Motability Scheme I thought it was about time somebody bothered to present a defence of it. I do not work for Motability, I do not even use the scheme myself but because the newspapers won't consider the other side, I'm going to, because the whole thing is getting right on my wick.

Right, deep breath. The Motability scheme is a tax payer funded scheme that gives hope and freedom to thousands of disabled people in this country, who would otherwise never be able to afford a car suitable for their needs, themselves. It is a car lease scheme. Lease being the important word there. It is not a willy nilly free luxury car giveaway scheme, as some sections of the media would have you believe. You are not eligible to use the scheme to get yourself the latest Audi TT if you have dyslexia. Or an in growing toe nail, or a nut allergy, or a sore thumb or a poorly tummy.

To be eligible to use the scheme you have to be receiving the highest rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance. To receive this, you must be unable to walk or have your ability to walk severely impaired. Many conditions can fall into this category. I will list some. Arthritis, disease of muscles bones and joints, Paralysis, Multiple Sclerosis, Motor Neurone disease, double amputation, spinal conditions such a Scoliosis or Spondylosis. These are conditions that often or always mean an individual affected by them either needs a wheelchair or has severe difficulty walking. There are also many conditions that can mean the act of walking, whilst physically possible for an individual is severely damaging to their health. Some of these may include Cystic Fibrosis, severe Asthma, Peripheral vascular disease, heart disease, lung disease, blood disorders such Sickle Cell Anaemia. There are also other conditions, where an individual may appear physically able to walk with healthy limbs but have severe neurological disorders that mean their brain is incapable of functioning in order to stimulate their limbs to facilitate the act of walking. People who have had strokes, people with Parkinson’s Disease, Dementia, and many other neurological diseases and brain injuries fall into this category. There are also people who have severe learning difficulties and  complex mental impairments that leave them dependent on a carer or family member to ensure their physical safety when completely simple daily tasks. They are incapable of independently walking without endangering themselves or others. It could mean for instance, a woman, of average height, build and strength is responsible for getting her adult Autistic son, 6ft, say 14 stone, safely to doctors and hospital appointments he is terrified of whilst being unable to reason with him, explain dangers or physically restrain him when he resists. A challenging, embarrassing and ultimately frightening task made unimaginably more difficult if you are solely reliant on public transport.

I may be wrong but none of these conditions sound much like a barrel of laughs. These conditions may mean the individual suffering from them may be reliant on a cocktail of pain killers to get out and about, they may be managing incontinence or serious fatigue. They may have needed assistance washing, dressing and managing basic general hygiene before you see them out and about. It may be the first time they have left the house in a month, they be travelling to have chemotherapy, they may be terminally ill. They may have needed to pay a carer to accompany them when you see them because their disability robs them of the independence to get out and about on their own. Some people may be managing some of those difficulties and still working, picking their kids up from school, having a social life. The scumbags.  

People often express frustration that the cars leased (not given) to disabled people are big and/or expensive and are unable to understand why one model of car can’t be used for all those eligible, why new cars are available as opposed to second hand ones and why large saloon cars are available rather than just your standard “run around” hatchbacks. Quite simply, one model of car, specifically a hatchback would fall hopelessly short of meeting the needs of the vast majority of those eligible who rely on the scheme the most. Absolutely it would be sufficient for those who don’t rely on mobility aids, who don’t need adaptations, and who don’t have children or large amounts of luggage, or work equipment they need to transport, too.

The problem is if you throw a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair (which really for most, is a mobility essential) or adaptations into the mix, the process of finding a suitable car becomes all the more complex. Other factors like needing to be able to fit a couple of kids into the car or some luggage or some work equipment on top of that makes the process an absolute mine field. Some adaptations can only be fitted to new cars, some only useable in cars with automatic gearboxes. Most average hatchbacks are too small to carry the average wheelchair in the boot without dismantling the chairs, lots of chairs can’t be dismantled or folded or only to an extent. Wheelchair users usually require a saloon or an estate car, these are bigger and more expensive. To go away, some wheelchair users may need to take a shower chair with them in order to wash, sometimes portable but still usually heavy and fairly bulky these chairs are usually designed specifically for the individual. Some people can get around this, if they don’t need a custom made one by renting one from disability aid shops, if they can find one, at obviously, a cost. Some people may need to transport both a wheelchair and a walking frame at times because their condition fluctuates. Somebody unable to use their legs like myself, will essentially have to use their upper body strength to haul themselves into the car and then lift their own chair into the car by themselves if they wish to travel independently. Several adaptations can be made to make this easier but many have the attitude that if they are physically capable of doing so then they will do it on their own. Some of the considerations they will need to make in order to do this are the length of the door, the space between the car edge and car seat, the positioning of the gear stick and hand break and the ease of which they are able to adjust the positioning or the car seat. All cars are different, however none I imagine are made with the needs of a disabled person such as this specifically in mind. What seem like minor insignificant details to an able bodied person when choosing a car can be deal breakers for a disabled person.

Are you bored yet? Complicated isn’t it?

The issue of somebody other than the disabled person driving the car or the disabled person not always being in the car when it is used or the car residing at an address other than the disabled person’s also understandably causes confusion and concern. As the newspaper’s fail to consider legitimate reasons for this, preferring of course to drum up anger and resentment, I will endeavour to do so. Many disabled people are unable to drive themselves, it could be they don’t have enough mobility to, the strength to or it could be that they rely on painkillers to manage their pain thus making them dangerous to drive. So they rely on somebody else to drive them around, a relative or carer. Some disabled people are children, the laws forbids them from driving. They usually require a parent. It is often the case that due to very high fuel costs and the massive dependence families that include a disabled person or child have they are unable to run two cars. A Motability car often then has to be suitable to accommodate the needs of that family. A single mother for instance may need the use of an adapted vehicle to take her disabled child to school, she will then need to go to work or go out to do the weekly errands, usually a fair few more than the average parent without a disabled child. She may get a phone call at any time while she’s out asking her to come and pick the child up because they have come into difficulty at school. It would be ridiculous to expect the child’s parent to have used an alternative car or public transport to get home, pick up the adapted vehicle and then go get the child. Time may be imperative; they are probably stressed and worried and can do without some sort of car swapsy game to add to an already difficult situation. To save time, swap parent for partner or relative and imagine, that they may have to suddenly go home from work, or to the disabled partner’s work place to attend to them, or perhaps take them to the doctors. Imagine it may not be a partner but an elderly disabled relative and consider perhaps at times it may be somebody who doesn’t work or a younger, fitter grandson for instance that may be in possession of the car on occasion because they may be the person most capable of attending to the disabled person quickly. Sometimes people will take advantage of the circumstances and use the car when they don’t need to but it’s not all black and white, it’s not all straightforward abuse of the system and it is difficult to monitor.

Using alternative methods of transport is simply not a viable option for many disabled people. I’d challenge anybody able bodied to have a shot at a week endeavouring to use public transport and taxis in a wheelchair. It may be getting more accessible for wheelchair users but I can assure you it’s still a bloody nightmare. Some might describe it as hit and miss. Hit and miss and get stranded, hit and miss and rely on asking a stranger to help, hit and miss your appointment, hit and miss being in on time for work.       

Having access to a car they can afford to run (as Motability cars are exempt from road tax) allows many disabled people to get to work and pay tax, or get to hospital appointments without using hugely costly and often unreliable ambulance transport services. It enables them the basic means to have a healthy life. It enables them to visit friends and family, take their kids to the cinema, and enjoy their lives, that are so very often hampered by ill health, immobility, depression and trauma. Without the scheme there are many disabled people who would never leave their house, some would be forced to stop working, many would find it harder to keep themselves healthy and happy, keep themselves sane. There would be more disabled people in NHS hospitals ill because they couldn’t look after themselves sufficiently, more requiring the help of mental health services, more needing assistance from an already under funded social services. More would feel isolated from the rest of society, more would feel that life is no longer worth living, more would sit at home hopelessly wanting and waiting to die. All good stuff, eh?

Horrifically there are people, national newspapers included, who are spending time, energy and column inches attacking the system from every possible direction; twisting facts and figures, manipulating data, conveniently leaving out details, essentially conning the public into thinking the system is widely and comprehensively abused. Yes there is some abuse of the system but it is not widespread in the grand scheme of things and the people responsible are more often than not people not doing their jobs properly, failing to classify people’s disabilities correctly.  Sometimes it is just human error, or a lack of communication, a small percentage of the time it is outright dishonestly and deception. Although it should be noted that there are lots of people in this country, who on being mistakenly afforded something they are not legitimately entitled to, are reluctant to shout it from the roof tops and give it back. There are lots of people who dishonestly benefit from tax payers money to their own financial gain. A depressing number of these people call themselves MP’s. Yet some of those same people, with the help of irresponsible and incompetent journalists are targeting a system that not only saves lives but the country a huge amount of money and strain in other areas. There are problems with the implementation of the system and this must be addressed but the system itself is one our government and media should be fiercely protecting not aggressively attacking.

If you ever find yourself envious of a disabled person with a bigger, newer or more expensive car than you, be ashamed of yourself or willing to swap your freedom, dignity and health for it.