Sue Marsh from Diary of a Benefit Scrounger, reports on a concerted effort in the right-wing press to prevent any real debate over benefits.
Sue Marsh blogs at Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Today, the Daily Express and Daily Mail are full of cheating, scrounging sick people.
The Express screams: “Blitz on Britain’s benefits madness”, contrasting those on “sickness handouts” with “hard working taxpayers”.
According to the the Express, Tory MP Philip Davies joined the outcry, saying:
“People are sick to the back teeth of being taken for a ride by people sponging and scrounging and abusing the system.”
While the Mail screams:
“Scandal of 80,000 on sickness benefits for minor ailments… including diarrhoea.”
To accompany the claim that “drug addicts” have been allowed to claim, they included a picture of someone snorting white powder through a rolled up note.
The papers go on to list “blisters”, “headaches”, “depression”, and “problems with scholastic skills” as evidence that there are hundreds of thousands of people living the good life at “taxpayers” expense who have nothing really wrong with them.
For a moment, let’s forget the fact that only the first ailment a person lists on their claim form is taken into account in these figures. Let’s ignore the fact that someone with “nail disorders” might also have cancer or kidney failure. Let’s ignore the fact that someone classified under “drug abuse” might also suffer from schizophrenia or multiple sclerosis..
I have “diarrhoea” but why? Well, because of the 32 growths I’ve had to have removed from my guts and the seven major operations to remove rotten lengths of bowel, leaving me with half as much intestine as your average ill-informed hack.
My friend has “blisters.” She suffers from the rare skin disease Epidermolysis Bullosa. Her skin blisters and comes away at the lightest touch, leaving her scarred and in constant, terrible pain.
“Headaches?” Cluster headaches (also referred to as “suicide headaches”) are thought to be one of the worst pains known to man, not something to be confused with a hangover.
I could go on, but I’m sure you’re beginning to see why these horrible articles, fuelled by “statements” today from Chris Grayling, minister for Work and Pensions and our very own prime minister, only serve to turn a sensitive, delicate subject into a form of attack. They aim to pitch one condition against another whilst asking more fortunate citizens to view those who are unwell with mistrust and contempt.
Perhaps there is a legitimate debate to be had over which conditions “hard working tax-payers” are willing to support. There is certainly some validity in the claim that many sick or disabled people would love help and support to find a job.
However, surely none of us agree that this is the way in which to conduct that debate? Surely allowing our politicians and our media to whip up hate and prejudice against a particular group of society is something we should all be ashamed of?
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
148 Responses to “Right-wing hate campaign clouds debate on benefits”
Anon E Mouse
Mason Dixon, Autistic – You attempted to compare peoples weight problems through straight forward gluttony (like Lord Prescott eating all the pies) with people suffering from the genetic disorder PWS which can present as obesity.
Please reread the post you made at Comment 21 and explain where I have “been caught out” lying as you so rudely put it.
My position is fat, pie eating inflicted obesity, exemplified by the likes of Lord Prescott or Baroness Billingham is not the same as a genetic disorder. One can be cured by eating less food and taking exercise and the other cannot…
Mason Dixon, Autistic
Anon E Mouse, I did no such thing and that is where you are being caught out being a blatant liar.
Having explained to you what part of your ramblings I was responding to, you’ve rejected this and given no reason except to keep re-asserting your strawman.
My position is that your argument in relation to the addiction and obesity figures for IB that were the recent news item rely on a presumption about those claimants. I pointed out the very obvious reason why you expressed that you had no wish to hear about the reasons why they might engage in ‘self-inflicted’ behaviour; which was that a more fuller picture of the facts was inconvenient to your argument.
This is demonstrably true, which is why you have resorted to lying about what my position is.
Anon E Mouse
Mason Dixon, Autistic – You continue to be openly dishonest.
A person suffering from the genetic disorder PWS will not be receiving IB for anything other than that condition.
Please read what Sue Marsh wrote regarding people’s first claim on the form, reread what you wrote in Comment 21 and stop comparing big fat pie eaters like Lord Prescott with a serious disability (instead of a lack of willpower where fattening food is concerned).
You keep acusing me of something I haven’t said and YOU presume that pie eaters like Lord Prescott would list obesity rather than a genuine genetic illness on a claims form. You have no evidence they wouldn’t tell the truth about their situation and the suggestion is ludicrous.
Someone either has a genetic disorder or they do not. To suggest you know better than individual suffers shows an arrogance that is frankly shocking.
You should stop your posts now Mason Dixon, Autistic because your comparison of PWS and obesity is a disgrace and you should feel shame for making your remarks. This isn’t a game you know. Real people’s lives are affected and people with your attitude belong in another era frankly. I have no intention of continuing a debate whilst you hold such horrible views belittling genuine people with disabilities…
BenM
Anon E Mouse
One stat I like is this one: Conservatives 307 seats. They couldn’t muster a small majority against a Prime Minister generally regarded as awful.
Now Brown is gone and the Lib Dems have sold their soul, Labour are in the strange position of simply being able to out poll the Tories without really doing much. That would be a delicious irony.
After all, the Tories struggle to poll much above 37pc even now – against an opposition you class as useless.
Sure, the Tories are hell bent on gerrymandering the seat boundaries, but that would seal the Lib Dems failure and their electoral fate too.
As for your other query – I don’t particularly much care for distinctions between self inflicted injury or not. All I know is we are human beings, with all attendant flaws attached. And that we are more than capable of collectively mitigating against stupidity and sheer bad luck through a strong welfare state and health service.
Rightwing propaganda that only pretends otherwise is not grounded in evidence, economics or finance.
Mason Dixon, Autistic
Anon E Mouse,
“A person suffering from the genetic disorder PWS will not be receiving IB for anything other than that condition. ”
This is patently incorrect and as I have already told you, you do not have the evidence on hand to make this kind of presumption about IB claimants. I for one would not list Autism as primary disability unless specifically directed to do so and I did not on my DLA form; listing instead sensory issues specifically. People with genetic or pervasive neurological disorders will tend to do this because they can’t distinguish their condition from themselves, just their difficulties as they experience them.
Your passive-aggressive crocodile tears aside I have quoted exactly what you said, that you do not want to hear about the possible underlying causes of a condition, which may in fact turn out to be a symptom of something else:
“Why on earth wouldn’t you want more money to go to those in genuine need like MS sufferers and less to greedy fat self inflicted obese people.
And please don’t start the “let’s look at the reasons they eat to much” stuff.”
You however have not been able to directly quote what you claim I have said because I never did say anything at all resembling your strawman. Despite repeatedly correcting you on my position, with evidence, you believe you know my opinion better than I do. It is hard to believe you a genuine contributor here in good faith for debating purposes, rather than persistent troll with nothing better to do.