THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO

Disabled Universal Credit Migration Arrangements Ruled “Unlawful”

The High Court has once again administered a damaging typhoon to the government’s Universal Credit plans.

A judge has ordered the government’s Universal Credit migration arrangements for those who previously received the Severe Disability Premium (SDP) and, moved onto Universal Credit before 16 January 2019 as; “unlawful.”

Now the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will have to rethink its strategies to recompense disabled benefit claimants who moved to Universal Credit prior to January 16th if they were in receipt of the Severe Disability Premium (SDP).

Under the prevailing precepts, claimants who moved onto Universal Credit before January 16th 2019 would get £80 per month in compensation. This is known as the SDP Gateway.

However claimants who would be part of “managed migration”, would get a top-up of £180 per month. £180 is the amount actually lost when claimants on Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) with the SDP, move onto Universal Credit.

The SDP Gateway came into force on 16 January 2019 and stops any additional “severely disabled benefit claimants” from being forced to move onto Universal Credit until they are subject to a managed migration process, and the High Court ruled that this provision was “unlawful”.

Although it had not yet come into force, had it done so, over 10,000 severely disabled claimants would have been £100 a month worse off, and a two-tier system would have been created whereby a date determined how much you got.

The case was brought by two men with severe disabilities, known as TP & AR, represented by Leigh Day Solicitors and, by a woman known as SXC who is also severely disabled. SXC was represented by Central England Law Centre, and TP & TR acquired another landmark case at the High Court. It was ruled that the government had “unlawfully discriminated” against them when they moved Local Authority and were expected to claim Universal Credit.

It is this decision that made the DWP draw up the so-called “SDP Gateway”. Now their answer to last years case has been forced out too. This is an enormous humiliation for the DWP and Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd MP.

Amber Rudd pledged in January that she was going to listen to claimants concerns. Now she has wasted money struggling to prevent this decision confirming that her claims of empathy are no more than hollow words.

A statement by TP &TR was issued through their solicitors Leigh & Day saying;

“After the High Court judgement last year, we thought we had finally forced the government to ensure that people with severe disabilities who had to move onto Universal Credit from the old system would not be without adequate protection or worse off. However, we then learned that the Government was proposing to short-change us and thousands of other severely disabled persons by around £100 a month. It is extremely frustrating that we have had to fight these cases through the courts when it is clear to all that the government’s unfair and dysfunctional universal credit system is indefensible.”

Yet again the government’s policies for disabled benefit claimants have been found unlawful.

Margaret Greenwood MP, Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, responding to the news that the Government was defeated again on Universal Credit migration, said:

“This judgment highlights just how badly the Government failed severely disabled people living without a carer when it forced them onto Universal Credit.

“It is shameful that the Government has wasted public money trying to justify a lower level of payments to this group of disabled people, who need support to live independently.

“The level set was far short of the loss they have suffered. Disabled people should not have to fight through the courts to receive the support they should be entitled to.

“The judgment now leaves the Government’s plans for the managed migration of Universal Credit in chaos. The Government must stop the rollout of Universal Credit.

“I contacted the DWP for comment but received no response by the time of publishing.”

Most of the people who work for the DWP are scammers, along with the government, who are scammers as well, although there are also scammers that don’t really need disability benefit, but then there are people that do require help and have loads of testimony to determine their illnesses but that are treated like scammers.

MPs get away with fraud all the time by scamming the taxpayers and so on, and they’re a disgrace because they’re scamming disadvantaged and disabled people to what they’re entitled to.

These are our MPs, so ask yourself one question, what is it that they do for the impoverished and working class people, well, they rip us off, they steal from the needy to feed themselves and their rich friends…

They said that the old benefits system was complicated and out of date, but then Universal Credit is even more complex. The old benefits system was not broken, so why try to fix it? But then our government appear to have a problem with the disadvantaged and the disabled of this country, they seem to be terrified of them, but then this government is either blind and oblivious of the challenges or the hardships that disabled and impoverished people are in, are they though? Of course not, they know, they simply don’t care.

But why should the Tories care? They’re absolutely loaded and some of them are multi-millionaires, so why shouldn’t they deny the suffering and destitute, because in relation to what our MPs are getting, the poor and needy are getting precious little in comparison, and for the government to give them more, it would make a huge difference to their lives, and it wouldn’t make a dent in the governments pockets, especially all those MPs who are living off the fat of the land, and it’s destitute.

And now the Tories plan to appeal against this judges ruling, how dare they attempt to turn the tables against a decision that’s been legally endorsed by a judge in support of the claimant’s, and it’s sickening how they’re trying to reverse the judgment, considering they’re bunch of scroungers themselves, attempting to default the people in every way possible when it comes to making benefits available for the poor, and it’s been an onslaught since the day they took office, and it was their intention to hammer the welfare system.

Once a decision has been reached, there should be no lurking around in the cesspit, looking to find a judge who’s willing to override a law-abiding determination, and what a shameful bunch of people they are, but then this is a typical Tory ideology because as far as they’re concerned disabled and needy people are nothing more than a burden, and if you go on any right-wing pro-Tory forum, you’ll see the typical anti-claimant comments for yourself.

And it’s utterly sickening how they can be permitted to treat needy and sick people like this, and they should be facing criminal charges, starting with Iain Duncan Smith, and they know full well that they’re causing people to kill themselves but they simply don’t care.

But even if conclusive evidence was possible, we all know that the Tories distort the facts to accommodate their agenda.

We need a new government that cares about every human being. Theresa May asserts that she’s a Christian, but how could she be Christian if she’s assisting unlawful genocide? But then she’s never going to lose her job or have to rely on Universal Credit, and yet she tries to justify this evil, ruthless policy.

This is characteristic of the treasonable Tories, and everything they do is criminal, but they believe they can continue to deprive our elderly, infirm and disabled because, in Tory eyes, all these people are surplus to demand.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg because there are hundreds of people committing suicide with this farce that they’ve been given to live on.

Universal Credit Basic Allowance

Your basic allowance will depend on whether you are single or claiming as a couple, and your age. There is one basic allowance for your household:

Single claimant aged under 25: £251.77 per month

Single claimant aged 25 or over: £317.82 per month

Joint claimants both aged under 25: £395.20 per month

Joint claimants either aged 25 or over: £498.89 per month

Out of this money, people are having to pay for gas, electric, water, sewage, council tax, and food. Gas, electric, water and sewage is not a fundamental need, it’s a necessity, and without it, we’re simply going back to Victorian times, and this entire conservative government believes it can operate in an illicit way and get away with it.

And while people keep voting for them, they will keep doing stuff like this. People know that the Tories have killed all public services, the NHS, Education, the police force, the fire service, the Armed Forced, the border forces, social services, and social care for the disabled and elderly.

They’ve starved local authorities of money and resources and have made the poor and vulnerable even poorer and more defenceless, whilst making the wealthy wealthier, but they still insist on voting for them, but I’m not really sure what their reasoning is, and what we have to do specifically to make people understand how utterly depraved they are, and that they care nothing about this country, it’s all about money and staying in control, and making money for themselves and their associates.

But get used to it because after we come out of the EU our human rights will be toast because the Tories will have free reign to cause whatever destruction, misfortune and suffering to the less fortunate, and it’s all in the Tories extermination program.

Mums Leaving Newborn Babies In Hospital Because Of Universal Credit

Mums are being forced to leave their newborn babies behind in hospital because they can’t afford to keep them thanks to Universal Credit and other welfare cuts, and other mums are turning to charities to pay for food, clothes, beds and blankets for their newborn babies.

And these babies, some of them haven’t even got a coat, pram or anything to take the baby home in, and the baby is left in the hospital when the mother goes home until a social worker or the NHS find provisions.

But a baby bank has been opened up, and two large shipping containers are now crammed with everything parents might need.

Abigail Mobey, 34, who has a week-old daughter, was one of the first to attend the facility, collecting clothes, nappies and a pram, but she didn’t actually want to ask for help, she simply never had any other option, but she feels like she’s won the lottery, and that it’s a miracle, and she’s also found help at the centre for her older children.

These parents that go to the centre really have no other choice because they’re simply not getting enough money from Universal Credit, and these parents don’t want their children to get browbeaten for having the wrong uniform at school.

Now Abigail’s son will have decent school shoes, and her daughter was the only one at school who didn’t have a summer uniform and now she does.

It’s just things that they’ve given to her, and just to be welcomed with a smile and a hug means more than anything to this woman, and new figures reveal 35,000 families have been supported this year alone by baby banks.

One organisation, Little Village, has given out more than £1million worth of kit to 2,000 despairing families since they started in 2016, including 30,000 nappies, 753 cots and 604 buggies, and Dave and Carole Lambourne set up Little Fishes baby bank in their garage, and it’s shocking in this day and age that parents need to use baby banks, but it’s the truth, and there are parents out there who are working but still struggle to put a meal on the table.

This is shameful considering we are the 5th wealthiest country in the world and people are having to go to baby banks, and this Tory government should hang their heads in shame, but didn’t the government bring in Universal Credit so more and more people would commit suicide? That’s one way of getting the dole line down with those who are ill and can’t work, many are committing suicide, and those who are prepared to work, they’re out there hopelessly striving to get work, but can’t, unless, of course, you are willing to do zero hour contracts, but then don’t earn enough money to pay rent and then need to go to food banks.

But then we have a corrupt and shameful government that control this country, they’ll feed the world and give billions away but not to their own country, and it’s horrendous that these food banks and baby banks even have to exist.

Some people out there might say that these people shouldn’t be having babies if they can’t support them, that they should use contraception, and that not getting pregnant is not difficult, but contraception is not 100 per cent, sometimes the contraceptive pill doesn’t work or whatever everybody else uses.

But this is your life, why shouldn’t you have a baby? What are people supposed to put their lives on hold permanently, people are not robots, the clock is ticking, but people merely pray that they will get work so that they can live their future, but sadly there are not enough jobs for everyone, and every day more and more robots take them over, and in the end the vast preponderance of humans will be out of a job.

What will they do then, will they have to put their dreams and goals on hold for the rest of their lives? And this will happen unless society moves forth with a different way of thinking, it’s already unfolding!

Banksy Artwork Depicting MPs As Chimps

I do love a laugh when it comes to members of parliament and what they get up to but when Banksy’s artwork was put on show; it just made me smile all day. There was Banksy’s artwork representing politicians in the House of Commons as chimpanzees, and then I thought, hold on a moment, somethings wrong here, not one of them is sleeping on the job.

The graffiti artist’s work, named Devolved Parliament, was been put on show at Bristol Museum & Art Gallery in time for the original deadline of 29 March.

Devolved Parliament was purchased by an unnamed collector, who had loaned it to the museum to mark a decade since its unveiling.

It’s exceptional art, and that great art is a representation of society. It puts a mirror to society and presents the mood and landscape, and that’s what Banksy does, he points that mirror back at society, and to be fair, it would be kind of refreshing to have apes in parliament striving to improve society, instead of the self-serving individuals we have at the moment, and no matter what we feel about Brexit, this sums parliament up eloquently.

Sadly, there’s not enough poo being thrown about in the painting though, but then again, apes are far more intelligent than politicians who reside in parliament.

Maybe we could do a swap with London zoo and put Clown, Rees- Mogg and Gove in the endangered species enclosure, and then we can have the apes in parliament instead, at least then they’ll make well-informed choices for their whole group and not merely parts of it.

Benefit Money Wrongly Denied To Stephen Smith

The money six-stone Stephen Smith was unfairly denied in benefits will now be used to pay for his funeral, because the 64-year-old died only a few months after winning a lengthy battle with the Department of Work and Pensions after staff considered he was fit for work, despite being severely ill, they still denied him his benefits.

After being wrongly turned down and told he needed to look for work, he was forced to sign on every week, even though he could hardly walk, and while in hospital being treated for pneumonia, the gaunt, six stone Stephen Smith discharged himself from hospital to attend a tribunal to reverse the DWP’s judgment of him.

But after Stephen Smith’s case made the headlines, the DWP apologised and agreed that they would issue him with a back payment of more than £4,000, these were the benefits he should have got, and in February ITV Granada Reports raised his situation with Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Amber Rudd, who requested an inquiry into what went wrong in Mr Smith’s case, calling it ‘very upsetting’.

The consequences of that investigation haven’t been made known, and it’s not explicit if any modifications have been made as a consequence of his situation, but in a cruel twist of fate, that money he was wrongly denied will now be used to pay for his funeral, which was held at Anfield Crematorium on Friday 3 May.

Stephen Smith was supported in his fight for benefits by volunteers at the CASA Community Centre in Liverpool, and it’s evident the distress he went through in attempting to get the benefits he required will not have helped his deteriorating health, and it’s with no uncertainty that his treatment from the DWP was a contributory factor to his health getting worse, and if they’d heeded warnings from his doctor, who said that if he was found to be fit for work, it would lead to a more grave decline in his health.

That money that the DWP finally paid back to him, he will never get an opportunity to spend it, and in a wicked statement, made by the Department of Work and Pensions, they said that their thoughts were with Stephen Smith’s family and friends and that they were committed to ensuring that people with health conditions get the assistance they’re entitled to, try telling that to Stephen Smith, oops, they can’t, he’s dead!

Remember this story, remember this man when you next vote for the Tories. Don’t be sheep, demand change because it now proves that both the main parties don’t give a crap, only when they want your vote do they give a crapola.

People need to be voting with their brains and their hearts. Don’t just vote for a party because you’ve always voted for them, because let’s face it, when has any MP had to suffer like this man had to?

The DWP most certainly hastened the rate of Stephen Smith’s death and they should be held liable for this because they clearly didn’t take any notice of what Stephen Smith’s own doctor had said. He was Mr Smith’s doctor and knew all the effects of his health, and what the added strain from the DWP would have on him.

But they used their own care professionals, whatever that is, and after an hour or so of seeing Stephen Smith, they concluded that he was fit for work. Why don’t the DWP just call it euthanasia for the sick and needy?

They should be ashamed of themselves, that means all parties for not standing up and demanding that there are variations in the system, since now it’s been established so many times that these DWP medicals are crippling to the well-being of the claimants, and then when they are proven wrong, they get some footman to stand up in parliament to atone for them, which hasn’t done this man any good at all.

A Judge Who Offered To Pay A Teenager’s Court Fine After She Stabbed Her Paedo Abuser Has Been Disciplined

Judge Jonathan Durham Hall QC refused to jail a 15-year-old girl after she admitted stabbing her assailant, 56, six years after he walked free from court.

Delivering his comments through the case in 2015, he announced it would be a “disgrace to send a survivor like you to prison”. Instead, he gave her a rehabilitation order and told her not to pay the mandatory victim surcharge, saying, “If anyone tries to force you, I will pay it myself.”

Nevertheless, following the case he was reviewed by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office who stated he was guilty of misconduct, and the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice deemed that this neglected to show even-handedness, and his remark amounted to misconduct.

The judge was given “formal advice”, the lowest kind of discipline the body can give.

Zabhullah Boota 3.jpg

The teen stabbed 56-year-old Zabhullah Boota, who sexually violated her when she was eight-years-old, by plunging a blade through his chest.

She carried out the attack on her abuser’s doorstep in 2015, six years after he walked away from court for assaulting her as a child. Boota was given a community order at Bradford Crown Court in November 2010 after he was convicted of sexual assault and influencing a minor under 13 to join in sexual activity.

However, Boota, then 51 and reportedly with an educational age of ten was not jailed, and the teenaged victim felt let down by the justice system after he walked free from court.

The girl, who can’t be named for legal purposes took a kitchen knife and went round to Boota’s home in Bradford, West Yorks, in November 2015, and she informed him that she was going to kill him before stabbing him in front of his two young children.

Boota, whose artery supplying blood away from his heart had been cut was saved by paramedics and surgeons. He was treated in intensive care and required a blood transfusion.

After stabbing her abuser, the girl hugged her aunt and said: “Tell my mum I love her,” and handed herself in at Trafalgar House Police station, in Bradford city centre. She said: “I’ve killed someone,” and promptly admitted to what she had done.

The teen was formally charged with attempted murder but the Crown accepted her plea of guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

The court learned how the girl had been “entirely destroyed” when Boota was not imprisoned for sexually assaulting her and encouraging her to join in sexual activity. He was given a community order after she had to give evidence at his trial because he denied the offences, but after, she was paranoid that he was going to get her.

The girl was later excluded from school for poor behaviour, and she feared she would never get a husband and she lived her life in a bad dream.

Boota was left in permanent pain from the injury, permanently maimed and his children have been affected, but rightly or wrongly, this 15-year-old felt that the justice system had let her down.

She was left profoundly troubled and scarred, and she acted in a few moments of hopelessness and despair, and this was an unusual situation which needed an extraordinary course, and this profoundly confused and broken child who was now tormented by low self-esteem was crying out for help.

Judge Durham Hall convicted the girl to a two year Youth Rehabilitation Order with supervision. He told her: “You stabbed him in the region of his heart. Mercifully, you did not kill him.

“He was saved by excellent medical intervention and has made a pretty full recovery.”

The judge continued: “Why did you stab this man? Because when you were eight in 2009 he committed serious sexual offences against you.

“He was treated by the courts, with hindsight, somewhat leniently but things have changed. Now there is condign punishment in cases of this nature, in accordance with the guidelines.”

In 2010, Boota was sentenced to a community order with two years’ supervision and required to sign the Sex Offenders’ Register, and he was made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order which included a provision preventing him from having any communication with the young victim.

Recorder Nolan contemplated imposing a residence order requiring him to live somewhere other than his home because his victim still lived in the neighbourhood, but despite the judge’s beliefs that Boota was being evicted from his home in Bradford anyhow, six years on, he was still living in the same house.

At the time, recorder Nolan stated that he was satisfied the assault was over a short period of time and he was satisfied it was a comparatively minor sexual assault, and that any assault of a child is bound to be serious and that the court should take the crime seriously as well.

And that had the man been of sufficient intelligence and physically fit he would have been considering a term of incarceration, but undoubtedly the assault was mitigated by the fact that he had severe learning problems and a number of physical limitations.

Speaking following the 2010 court hearing the girl’s mother, who can’t be named to preserve her child’s identity, said: “How could that happen?

“A child gets attacked and the judge gives him a community order. He’s a paedophile, where is the justice in that?”

Sadly, justice is not always written into the law books, but we should still praise the system for the continuing publicity which will inform others of this mans presence in the community, and well done to the judge and the victim, and we should not be punishing the judge in this case, we should be giving him a piece of our heart.

This judge needs to be promoted with immediate effect, after all, he’s about the only judge we have with any common sense. This judge should be commended, and every pervert should go in front of him, then perhaps they will be punished suitably and not walk amongst us again.

Handshakes Could Be Banned At Work

Handshakes could be forbidden under new workplace rules to circumvent costly sexual harassment allegations, and every employer may ban all kinds of physical touch to avoid uncertainty about what sort of touching is suitable.

It comes off the back of the #MeToo movement, with bosses rethinking their strategies and heading to a more black and white attitude, and some employers may put a full embargo on physical touch, but is this going a tad too far, especially when shaking someone’s hand? But they might say just no contact at all because there is no grey area’s then.

And according to a recent poll of 2,000 adults on Totaljobs, three out of four were keen for a full physical contact prohibition when at work, and it was pointed out that gestures such as putting your hand on someone’s back or giving a reassuring embrace could all come under the umbrella of being too personal.

It will still plausibly be safe to shake hands at work, except if your employer forbids it, in which event you will have to obey the rules, but it’s not only how you comport yourself in the office which matters either. The workplace does extend outside the office as well, the perfect example is the Christmas night out and staff behaviour when going to functions.

But indeed, isn’t this getting to be a little absurd, next you’ll not be permitted to make hand contact when getting change from a cashier in shops, and a handshake is consensual, when somebody puts out their hand to shake it, you consent by shaking it back, but if they keep their hand by their side or behind their back and it’s grabbed and shook against their will, then this is clearly physical assault, which is already covered in the law, so obviously there’s no call for a handshake ban, which would be complete insanity.

If anything, handshaking is social, polite, appropriate and NORMAL.

Perhaps we should go and work in France where men and women, men and men and women and women kiss each other when meeting, an extension to shaking hands, I can’t see this being banned any day soon, but we shouldn’t say women because apparently that sexist, or men for that matter, but HUMAN has man in it, so don’t use that either.

Is there a point to being politically correct, especially when it dictates our everyday lives? And the cultural niceties of the past that assisted human interaction is being denounced, but for what outcome? Because in the end what it will bring us down to is an emotionless society that will be undoubtedly controlled by our socially correct leaders, and it’s about time these minority, sad individuals, who want to dictate to others how they run their lives, to in no uncertain terms to “sod off”.

So, welcome to the unfortunate death of social norms, and the courtesy of a band of senseless society inept imbeciles.

Blind Woman Told To Get Off Bus

Megan Taylor, 22, was on a bus with her guide dog Rowley when an unnamed woman approached her and said: ‘Why is there a f*****g dog on the bus? Get it off.’ But when Megan attempted to politely explain Rowley was an assistance dog, she alleges that the woman called her a liar because guide dogs were yellow Labradors and her dog was black.

Megan, from Merseyside, said that she sought to clarify that her guide and assistance dogs can be any colour and don’t have to actually be Labradors, even though Rowley was, and the woman told her that she was mistaken. So Megan decided at this point that there was nothing she could say to educate this woman and that it wasn’t deserving her time in doing so, and Megan instead decided to ignore her while the woman proceeded to talk rubbish.

Megan has suffered from episodic blindness since she sustained a head trauma at 15, which also produced a number of other medical problems including hearing impairment, impaired balance, frequent fainting attacks and vertigo.

She stated that the incident was not the first time she has been vilified on public transport and it has left her anxious to go on the bus again, and she stated that she doesn’t believe that she’ll ever have a stress free trip on public transport, and that’s why she’s nervous when using it now.

On other occasions, she’s been spat at, stepped over, shoved out of the way and accused of being another drunk youth when losing consciousness due to her heart condition and neurological dysfunction.

Rowley helps Megan with numerous everyday tasks including retrieving dropped items, emptying the washing machine and getting undressed, but more importantly, Rowley can keep Megan calm and can even phone for assistance if she loses consciousness.

Megan said that she tries to stay positive and not let events such as what happened to her get her down because she’s not ashamed of her disability, and that despite having so many adverse experiences, she knows that these people are the minority and that most people are helpful and understanding.

Service dogs are incredible creatures, it’s just a shame that many of the human race can’t be as highly trained, and why didn’t the bus driver make this arrogant woman get off the bus so that everyone could have a peaceful ride?

It’s so obvious that this despicable person appeared to enjoy watching others suffer but then that’s what it’s like in the United Kingdom now with all the governments attacks of the disabled, and this is what it’s enabled because people now believe its okay to insult anyone who fits the disabled characterisation of what a disabled person is deemed to look like.

Not only is this a bad way to treat anyone who has to go through life with such medical problems it’s also a kick in the teeth for the people who do an excellent job training these animals to do the work they do. And any person who thinks they must make a point of how they feel with a reference to any point will stand on their soapbox to be heard and they’re the attention seekers.

All of these people need to walk a mile in this woman’s shoes and see if they feel the same reference to their words and then see how they feel because they should be ashamed of themselves, but then again, the police should have been called and this woman was at a shocking disadvantage, and such examples of poor behaviour can be terrifying, and people should show more concern, step up and help, and clearly the woman who did this was not only narrow-minded, cruel and rude, but also too believe that guide dogs et cetera have to be golden must have the mentality of a pea, considering the black Labrador is a pretty well know breed.

Growing Numbers Of Children Are Living In Appalling Conditions In The United Kingdom

In some parts of England, the state of housing in some areas is like a Dickensian novel. There are families of five or six or more in one bedroom properties, and children are being bitten by rats, and teachers have observed children reaching in bins for food, and going through other children’s pack lunches.

We should be generally shocked at the conditions that children and families are living in, and it’s hard to believe that we’re in the 21st century and people in a wealthy country are living in those conditions.

A teacher looked into a child’s mouth and she had these brown and black pegs, these were her teeth, they weren’t even teeth shaped anymore, and teachers have two-year-olds coming into the nursery school with missing teeth because they’re rotten.

It’s one of those things that people learn about and say, that’s absurd, children shouldn’t be going to school to learn about brushing their teeth, that’s something parents should be teaching them, but it’s pretty disturbing to discover the number of children who don’t actually have their own toothbrush at home.

Coats are being passed around three siblings, one day the older brother will have it, the next day the sister, the next day the younger brother, one coat between the three of them. Then you get a child whos shoes are too small for them, and when the teacher mentioned it to the parent; when the child came in the next day, the front of the shoes had been cut off, and this sequence of poverty is simply going to continue if we don’t get children and young people in a place where they can live their lives in a joyful and fulfilling way, and then education is essentially secondary to that.

Gone are the days when Britain was one of the greatest countries to live in. Gone are the days when NHS, Education system, Public Transport, Emergency Service, Bin Collection, Social Housing et cetera was all at its best. Now is all a huge mess and the party in number 10 couldn’t care less.

But the onus lies with contemporary politics, and all main parties are liable, Labour and Tories alike, even though it was the Tories who insisted on austerity supposedly to get the country out of debt, and they closed services that Labour had put in place that supported families, but the debt meanwhile got bigger and bigger while affluent families paid less and less in tax, and too many people have forgotten that austerity was and is motivated by the Tories.

And there’s no point saying that if a person can’t afford children they shouldn’t have them, the children are here now, and they’re suffering, so how will the government morally obligate to alleviate that, and where is their humanity? It’s called poverty, which means that most families incomes dropped after the recession, so you can’t then question whether these children should have been born because it’s then like closing the barn door once the horse has bolted, and the fact that any child is hungry and hunting through bins should horrify everyone.

But then this government want to pit ordinary people against each other, and we need to quit condemning the poor and look at the top of the food chain, and where our money is going, and to stop people who dodge paying their taxes, these children are starving, and they deserve more than this.

Any family could find themselves without an income due to sickness, disability or loss of a job, and the benefits system used to provide a security net which met a families essential need, but obviously, it doesn’t do that anymore.

The fact is, the child is now alive, and the parents are poor, and something has to be done no matter whose fault it is, and judging debate doesn’t help them, and the truth remains that numerous families have children whilst they’re financially stable, but anything can happen, none of us knows what’s around the corner: accidents, sickness, redundancy can change that, we are all two pay cheques away from poverty.

What about those girls and women who fall pregnant by mistake, maybe as teenagers or through a failed relationship, should they be punished because they don’t have the means to support their children? What about domestic abuse situations?

Families are on the edge income-wise, and some are poverty-stricken, but the government won’t do anything about the low wages, the zero hours contracts and job insecurity. Then there’s the growing cost of living and the state of our welfare system, but those who have watched a few episodes of “Benefits Street” think that they can judge, but if they spoke to those people for a little while, perhaps then they might find how real life is lived and the physical challenges that they face and their judgement of them might fade away.

There are those families that have children and everything is fabulous and they’re eating healthy and life appears normal, then there’s this financial shift and they say well we’ll manage but little by little things get difficult until one day they find themselves eating cheap jam sandwiches so that their children can eat, and glueing their shoes back together and using a black sharpie to cover the marks so that the shoes look okay, but no one wants this to happen, and it’s not always about having children you can’t afford.

It’s also a basic human right to have children; after all the United Kingdom is deemed to be the fifth wealthiest country on the planet, the problem is the uneven distribution of wealth, but that’s not the responsibility of the children, it’s the government’s fault for allowing it to happen.

People have been demonising the poor and putting the blame at their door for hundreds of years rather than putting the onus where it rests, with governments and exploiters.

Fortuitously, during that time there have been politicians and social commentators, like, Engels, Marx, Dickens who’ve highlighted the situation of the poor and over time we’ve produced a more balanced culture, but it was a lengthy aggression as there are those who believe the poor are there to be exploited and believe they have only themselves to blame.

Ultimately, through trade unions, workers rights and equal rights the working family started to make economic progress until most families, with two working adults had a comparatively comfortable life, and deservedly so, but with a welfare state that would properly support them when needed.

Now though, through the near annihilation of our safety net, the welfare state, zero hours contracts, a parsimonious minimum wage, homelessness at an abnormal level, and victimising TV like Benefits Street, the disadvantaged and vulnerable are once again being exploited, and are oppressed and frequently have nowhere to turn.

So, we’ve gone backwards, we’ve reverted to levels of poverty and disgrace for the poor as seen in Charles Dicken’s day. There’s even a return of Victorian diseases, so all that laborious work by the generations before us, of which everyone profited, have been essentially wiped out by the far right, in the last 9 years, but they’d love to go further.

Now though, people have attitudes with an acceptance of the situation, turning a blind eye to poverty and the people of this country are allowing that to happen, but then we can all now blame it on the children, but of course, the entire method of austerity is a conspiracy to privatise all services, and really we should be condemning the government for the chaos, along with the “Oops” Conservative party, rather than criticising parents who have children.

Of course, there are some of us that make bad life decisions and do get pregnant, but they have to live with those decisions. The point is, you can’t make presumptions about people, even if on the surface they seem to have made poor life decisions, we’ve all done that at some point or another in our lives.

So, what should we do, support some deserving families but not others? So, who determines this, or should we just shrug our shoulders and do nothing to reduce poverty because we’ve concluded that some people are very bad apples and don’t deserve to be helped? After all, it’s easier to be ignorant, contentious and self-righteous.

If we go back in time it was rather normal for mothers to knit their children’s clothes, patch up holes in their clothes, cut their children’s hair, go without meals so that they could feed their children, use unused food for the next nights supper, no heating, or share bath water with the whole family, it was all rather routine back then, but we’re now in the 21st century and it’s still happening and it’s actually shocking, and it’s going back to how it was, but it shouldn’t be happening.

Although it’s not happening in quite the same way, we had a greater sense of community back then, but Margaret Thatcher whacked that over the head and cremated it in the 1980s. Now, all we have to do is blame the victims, and to be fair, it’s far simpler to do that and doesn’t require anything more from us than the capacity to pass judgement viciously.

I suppose everyone was in the same boat years ago whereas now only a tiny minority are suffering, but we have too many ‘I’m alright jack’ people being judgemental, and to be honest, I don’t remember it ever being this bad even in the 70s. I don’t remember there being so many homeless people all over the streets, or food banks, or shops, libraries, and community and youth centres shutting down everywhere.

This entire thing is unethical, especially when Boris Johnson is making more for a single speech than some of these people will make in 10 years, and then there’s poverty, abject poverty, people who are poor and then there’s the Uber rich who exploit the people and evade the tax system, and it’s not good for the country, but these Uber wealthy people expect the comforts and perquisites and protections of their government, but poverty is very wrong.

I was a teen in the 70s, and parents were a lot more practical back then. I can remember “hand me downs”, but nobody went without anything. A coal fire took care of the heating, hot water and the drying of clothes. My mum would mend socks and mend my clothes, and other families would knit jumpers for school and make clothes, but sadly these skills are dying out.

A lot of today’s children don’t even have basic skills, such as changing a plug or fuse or even how to stitch on a button, and schools should have someone there to teach pupils these basic skills, it would make all the difference in their adult life, and the more we look around us we realise that the Tories are going to be in control for a long time.

And if people don’t believe that modern poverty isn’t real, simply take twenty minutes to visit a food bank, take some toothpaste and chat to the volunteers, it’s only twenty minutes out of your day, less time than an episode of Eastenders, and our government should be doing more to help parents on low incomes because no children should stay hungry or eat from bins.

It’s shocking and it will only get worse when we finally do leave the EU, and how can the 5th wealthiest country in the world have children in this kind of poverty? And getting rid of this Tory government continues to be a national priority.

But at the moment it’s okay that the fat cats are getting fatter, and Tory values and policies have taken us back to low wages, poverty, inadequate housing and a wider gap in social mobility that’s not been seen since the first world war, and they should be ashamed of themselves, and according to Theresa May, we’ve never had it so good, can you all smell the bullshit?

Of course, this is nothing more than engineered devolution, and this is very disturbing as the Hitler regime rears its ugly head once more, and we should have complete compassion for those parents who find themselves in a bad situation through no fault of their own. Perhaps their husband or partner died or was made redundant, although it’s a little different when parents have children knowing that they can’t support them or have poor lifestyles themselves, but we can’t tar everyone with the same brush.

But the Tories don’t appear to have a clue why this kind of thing is happening, and they’re in charge of nuclear weapons, scary, isn’t it? And they’re happy to send food and money all over the globe, and in a rich country where sovereignty, government, members of parliament and all their associated business friends demand obscene, totally unnecessary luxuries, and cheat, manipulate and grow fat on those indulgences.

It’s not about giving advice about making ends meet, it’s about inequality, desire and a crap system that needs fresh air and new people in it that have integrity.

Should Parents Be Allowed To Smack Their Children?

An MP has stated the law about smacking children is complicated and parents should have more autonomy to control their children. David Lammy believes parents should be able to smack their children without having to worry about being sent to prison.

Legislation changed back in 2004 to help protect children against harm at home, but some people are concerned that stringent laws could mean that children aren’t being punished enough when they do something wrong.

Believe it or not, children don’t want to be in charge, and they frequently test boundaries simply to make sure that their caregivers can keep them safe, and when grown-ups offer positive and negative consequences, children develop and learn, but children who have permissive parents frequently experience anxiety because they have to make adult decisions.

Should parents punish their child? Well, the discipline of a child’s behaviour should be for the parent to encourage a child to stop negative behaviours, make more positive choices and finally become a better person, because through discipline, children are taught to become responsible, respectable, kind and sharing people, and parents that spank their children usually believe that it won’t harm them.

Without discipline, children lack the means needed to navigate relationships and difficulties in life such as self-discipline, regard for others, and the capacity to interact with peers, in fact, failure to discipline children frequently results in children who are troubled, hostile, and even resentful.

Various experts have said that spanking teaches children that it’s okay to hit when they’re angry, and that spanking can physically harm children and that it can make them fearful of their parents, but fifteen years ago the government took that right away from parents, and now fifteen years on we have children on the streets thinking it’s okay to stab and kill other people.

Parents should be permitted to smack their children, only if they have been bad. Of course, battery is different from a smack for discipline, and parents should be permitted to smack their children, and back in the day most parents smacked their children, and sometimes it’s necessary to discipline a child, but of course, there’s a wide spectrum of how people determine acceptable spanking.

Why do parents smack their children? Well, the aim is typically to alter or correct a child’s behaviour by creating a little discomfort in terms of altering a child’s conduct, and in the short run, smacking is mostly effective, but children also need their parents to love them, nurture them, and encourage them, but also when children are bad they need their parents to limit their freedoms.

Shouldn’t we all have the freedom to chase our desires? To do what we want? To venture down the road we find most appealing? Isn’t that what our social movements (civil rights, women’s movement, gay liberation) have been about?

So why not children? Why shouldn’t children engage fully in the freedom movement? And, especially throughout their teen years, why shouldn’t parents surrender to their child’s wants? Well, this is why not. We exist in a world with few external restrictions, and we all need to have the sense to say NO to fleeting desires and emotions, and children, except for the most conscientious children, don’t have that ability.

Left to their own devices, how many children do you know who will choose to eat a healthy meal over gorging dessert for dinner? How many do you know who would choose to do homework rather than indulge in video games? How many do you know who would willingly say “it’s time for me to go to sleep”?

The dream of “freedom from” works only if you know how to handle the “freedom to” part. You may think you’re very lucky if you have complete freedom. But if you’re unable to create a viable balance between freedom and restraint, you’re not lucky at all.

Witness all the grossly overweight people, the crazy-in-debt people, the chronically sleep-deprived people, the addicted people, and these are grown-ups who should have more control over their impulses than children.

So what happens when children are free to do as they please? Do you believe their nobler instincts typically triumph over their baser ones? If so, you are a fantasist. For most children have no concept on how to handle an abundance of freedom, even though they’re commanding it.

It’s normal for children to lobby for fewer constraints, and it’s natural for parents to ease up on restrictions as children get older. But if parents make a wholesale submission to continuous and persistent demands for more freedom, the effects are typically shocking.

Here’s the end result when children get to run the household. They eat only what they want to eat. They watch an excessive amount of TV. They play an endless amount of video games. They go to sleep when they damn well, please. They cuss at their parents. They don’t take care of their things. They demand that their parents get them whatever they want. They have no frustration threshold. Their wants become their needs. Their needs must be met. Their needs supersede everyone else’s.

And that’s just a summary of pre-adolescent behaviour. Once puberty hits, teens without restrictions rule the household, defining their most violent activity as acceptable because it could always be worse:

“I can’t get up today; I’m too tired. I’m not going to school. Get out of my room and leave me alone!”

“I’m having a keg party this weekend. I don’t care if I’m underage. You know it’s better if I drink at home than to be out on the street drinking.”

“Yes, I’m hooking up with a lot of girls. That’s good. You always told me not to get serious with any one girl ’til I’m older.”

“It’s only pot. I could be using heroin or cocaine like lots of other kids.”

Children need parents to limit their freedom, to narrow their choices and to put pressure on them to meet their responsibilities. Children may not like all this control, but they need it. And parents need to step up to the plate and implement it, even when it’s so much easier to simply give in to the continuous complaining and demanding.

However, smacking is a complex matter because a smack is just a simple method of discipline, but difficulties occur when parents don’t know where to draw the line, and there are some people that would say that smacking is what makes us who we are, more behaved and respectable to others, and those that were born in the ’60s and before then were frequently smacked and in school were given the cane, and we mostly had pretty decent people on the streets, less brutality, although there were some that would slide through the net, they were usually from extremely troubled family’s, but we certainly didn’t have the brutality we do today.

I myself can remember coming out of my home one day and there was a young boy outside my house, he could have been no more than about 7 years old, and he stared at me and told me to “fuck off”. My reply to him was that his mother should wash his mouth out with soap, his response was “she can’t do that, I’ll have her done by Social Services.”

I remember saying to my parents to “watch this space” because in about 20 years time we will have children running about the streets stabbing and killing one another, and look it’s happening all the time now because there were constraints on how parents could discipline their children.

It should be up to the parents if they want to smack their child for bad behaviour, after all, it’s their child, but the government have taken that freedom away from parents, and now we have no powers over our children at all, and now children have rights and are rewarded even when they act negligently.

Punishment was given out in schools all the time, and at home, and more than often, if a child was spanked at school and then they went home to their parents with a letter to say they’d been bad, they would get a smack again, and if we had more control maybe then children would be more well behaved as at present they have no respect for anything, especially their parents.

I had some good slaps when I was growing up and I turned out just fine, but I did deserve it when I got it, and it did teach me a lesson. I turned out to be a trustworthy and decent person with morals, and that’s what my parents taught me by establishing boundaries and making me understand that I couldn’t always have what I wanted, and even though I disliked it as a child, as I grew up I understood that their discipline of me was because they loved me, and not because they just wanted to get pleasure out of it.

Children now are the spoilt generation, and parents are far too soft with their children, and rules imposed on kids today are far less stringent than a generation ago.

Parents give their children an unfettered restraint than they had as children, letting them have later bedtimes and more high-value toys and games, and something should be changed about the way they’re brought up. Tougher punishment should be imposed, and children are permitted too many material possessions and waste far too much time watching TV and playing computer games.

But children of the older generation said that their own austere childhood meant that they were prepared to give their children more liberties, and seven in ten mothers and fathers have said that because their own parents inflicted hard punishment, forty per cent admit giving their children an easier ride then they had when they were growing up, and presently millions of children are underperforming at school because their parents are too soft to impose rules.

Children are now suffering from loving neglect, and many of these children are staying up very late, playing video games or watching television in their bedrooms into the early hours and then going to school too exhausted to work and they can’t concentrate, and children are allowed far too much access to technology and material possessions.

Every parent raises their child in their own way and they make the decisions that they believe are best for that child. Different people prefer to live in different ways, and every child turns out differently because of the way in which they are raised.

There are some who think that children should have a restricted measure of freedom and that most of their decisions should be made by their parents and other adults in their lives.

There are others who think that children should be given multiple opportunities to exercise their freedom and to do what they want, and each person has to determine what is best for their children, but there are times when too much freedom can be detrimental.

Children who are given too much freedom can feel as if their life is out of control. Children who have the autonomy to make all of their own choices may discover that it is scary to be in charge of their own lives and they may long to have someone else step in and make decisions for them.

Children who are left to make all of their own choices might wish for a concerned adult to step in and show them what they should and should not do, and it can be scary for a child to embrace all of what they do.

It can be scary for a child to have to make all of their own decisions without any guidance from adults and giving a child too much autonomy can be harmful because of the way that children with a lot of freedom feel scared in regards to their lives.

Children who are given too much autonomy can make mistakes that can change their behaviour in big ways. It can be difficult for a child to know what is and is not right, and having too much autonomy can lead to a child messing up.

A child needs to have someone looking out for them and supporting them to figure out the best way to live. A child needs to have a grown-up helping them learn what is good and right, and a child who is given too much autonomy can mess up their life in a way that will destroy their future.

A child who is given too much autonomy can become injured because life is not safe for a child when they do not have anyone looking out for them, and every child needs to have their freedom restricted in some way in order for them to live a good life.

A parent who wants to keep their child protected and who wants to make sure that their child will not mess up their life in any big way must restrict their freedom at times, and children who are given too much autonomy may end up having difficulties dealing with authority at varying times in their life. Those children who grow up without having rules that they have to follow may have a difficult time respecting those who try to tell them what they should do.

Children need to know that there are times that they have to listen to the adults in their life, and those children who are given too much leeway will feel that they can do what they want no matter what the adults in their lives have to say.

Too much autonomy can be harmful as it can lead to discourteous and unruly children, and it can lead to adults who will not listen to authority, and it can lead to a bad end for numerous people as too much freedom makes a child believe that they can do anything and everything that they want to do when it comes to the way that they live their life.

Childhood is supposed to be the least worrying period of human life, but presently children are given far to much freedom, and once freedom is given, it can’t be taken back, but children really do want boundaries because they feel a lot safer when they have them.

They want the parent to say, “you must not do that”, and they like the feeling of authority because it’s a feeling of living in a little world where they know what is safe, what is right and what is wrong, and in a consistent world that’s not too complex.

If everything is permissible it can be overpowering, and it’s also unsafe because children don’t come into this world knowing what is right for them, and parents don’t do their children any favours by letting them get away with things.

For the first few years, a parent is nurturing their children, outlining behaviours and establishing structures, but encouraging discipline doesn’t mean that you have to stifle a child’s free will.

Children need to be able to have opinions and to express their individuality, and we should as parents be supporting them by giving them simple choices from a really early age. Such as saying “this drink or that one?” or “these shorts or those?” because it’s a restricted freedom that lets them examine their free will, but later on, the parent can connect outcomes to those choices, and that if they make the wrong choice, then there’s a price that has to be paid.

If the child decides to throw their food on the floor, then they don’t get their pudding, but the choice was still theirs, but the consequences acquaint them with their behaviour, after all, this is what they will have to face out in the real world. Rules, accountability and consequences.

Being Rejected For Disability Benefit

Approximately 8,000 people have died within six months of being rejected for a key disability benefit, with new figures unveiling that 7,990 people had an application for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) turned down, only to die inside six months since 2013.

3,680 of them were turned down less than three months before their death, and people who had PIP turned down, make up more than 10 per cent of the 73,800 people, in total, who died inside six months of registering a PIP application.

DWP chiefs maintained there was no evidence to suggest people died for the same reason they were attempting to claim PIP. And those hit were only a tiny portion of the millions of PIP claims since 2013, but campaigners have contended that the assessment is broken, with 72 per cent of PIP claimants who’ve been rejected and appeal to a tribunal win their case, and that there were instances of terminally ill people having PIP unfairly rejected, and those that have been hit, have tragically fallen through the cracks, when they needed help the most.

The figures, highlighted by welfare campaigner Alex Tiffin, were presented in a written statement to Parliament by the minister for disabled people Sarah Newton. They comprise a five-year period to April 2018 in which 3.6million PIP applications were made, including numerous people forced to change from the old benefit DLA.

PIP is worth up to £145 a week to manage the everyday costs of being disabled, and 3.8million people have been assessed for PIP since it began in 2013, and 2 million get it, but hundreds of thousands of former DLA claimants have been left with either less money or none at all after the switch, and claims for the terminally ill which were normally fast-tracked and dispensed with inside six working days was down from 11 when PIP was started, but some of the 7,990 people would have later got back their benefit on appeal before their death.

These shocking figures show how potentially gravely sick people who should qualify for benefits, have tragically slipped through the holes of a system that should be there to help them as they near the end of their life, and some cases have been uncovered where terminally ill people have had their PIP applications rejected when applying under Normal Rules and have died inside the year, and it’s shameful that some people who are dying have had their applications denied, and 17,070 people have further died waiting for a ruling on their PIP application over the last five years.

But DWP officials stated that people claim PIP for numerous reasons, the preponderance of which are non-life threatening, and that DWP decision makers take into consideration all the evidence presented and under PIP 31 per cent of people get the highest possible support, compared with 15 per cent under DLA, yeah right!

They said that they fast track the claim process for people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and that they’re ending unnecessary reassessments for people with the most severe and life long conditions, yeah right!

This is sickening and if this elitist government had an ounce of empathy they would change this policy immediately, and you would imagine with being the fifth wealthiest country in the world the very least they could do would be to look after their disabled people and the vulnerable, but clearly not.

This host of tax dodgers we have in government are quite prepared to stand by and watch disabled people die rather than give them the help they need, and these new developments to the benefit system has caused unjust hardship on those who can least afford it, resulting in thousands losing their homes and forced out onto the streets because they can’t afford to pay their rents.

And there is no doubt now that these variations in the benefits system had nothing to do with making the system better, it was simply a cynical and damaging plan to take benefits off disabled and vulnerable people, and for those who thought the nasty party had gone, you’re wrong, they’re back, only this time they’re even nastier.

There’s a bunch of people out there attempting to get sickness benefit, and are now sick because, before health and safety in the workplace, there were fumes and dust, but these people paid into a system to be looked after in sickness, and millions have paid into the system all their lives, but can’t get anything, just like the WASPI women that were due to retire and then the age limit increased another 6 years, but the government used all their money to try and scoop themselves out of the deficit.

This is the caring face of Tory Britain!

And some of these people that have been turned down for PIP and have either died because they have a terminal illness or they killed themselves because of it, so was it murder or suicide because those people from the DWP pester people to death.

But then this host of Tory toffs have never had to go without anything in their lives, but they implement some of the cruellest policies ever, and it’s had a destructive effect on the poor and disabled in society, and they should all hang their heads in shame because they’re despicable human beings, and they are the destruction of the United Kingdom and the most vulnerable. Welcome to the greatest country in the world, run by agitators!

This is just Tory Britain in total failure and a disgrace to its people. A shambolic Tory government clinging on by a thread, a Tory government in turmoil, a Tory government in denial, and a Tory government not fit for purpose.

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this: