Tory and Lib Dem MPs have decided terminally ill patients should work or starve

November 26, 2013

written by Tom Pride  from Pride’s Purge – an irreverent look at UK politics

Back in 2011, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs joined together to reject an amendment which would have exempted terminally ill cancer patients from benefit cuts.

They decided that if you are diagnosed with a terminal illness such as cancer – but have been given more than 6 months to live – you will have to work or starve.

Here’s a previous blogpost about that:

The government has finally done something so outrageous even I can’t be bothered to satirise it

This decision by coalition MPs was so outrageous that after intense lobbying, there were some concessions made by the government.

However, in a bizarre piece of upside-down DWP logic, it now seems that if you have less than 6 months to live – you will be refused benefits.

This is from the Chester and Ellesmere Port Foodbank blog:


Jenny came to the Chester and Ellesmere Port Foodbank last month, having been diagnosed with terminal Cancer. Her prognosis was three to six months. She already suffered with several chronic illnesses preventing her from working over the last two years and was in receipt of Disability Living Allowance. Having no family she was trying to “put her house in order”, ensuring all her bills were paid and saving up for her funeral. Her DLA was stopped; the reason given was that as she was not expected to survive the required time, she did not qualify for this benefit! She came to the Foodbank not for herself but to bring a neighbour who had mental health issues and short term memory problems. He had been 30 minutes late for his appointment at the Benefit office (he had forgotten the time!) and had therefore been sanctioned. He had not eaten for three days. They were both given a meal and the time to talk of their problems and referred to the appropriate agencies for food vouchers and further support and help. Several weeks later Jenny came to the Foodbank to thank everyone for the help and food that was given and the kindness and support that was shown in their time of need. Jenny died three weeks later.


So let’s be clear about this – if you are terminally ill and you don’t have the financial means to keep yourself for the remainder of your life – you will have to find work or starve.

I know some people will argue that Jenny could have appealed the decision which would have been overturned, or she made a mistake when she was filling in the forms which could have been rectified, or the DWP made an honest mistake themselves and Jenny should have gone back to them and argued her case harder. But she can’t now, can she?

Because she’s dead.


There are just 5 weeks left to reach 100,000 signatures to trigger a government debate on disability cuts. Please sign the War on Welfare petition:

War on Welfare 



October 26, 2013



I can top the story ‘Council Snoopers Check if Elderly Transfer Homes to Avoid Care fees’ (Daily Telegraph October 19 2013) with what is probably a nastier abuse of public office by councils I have experienced.

I became a single parent, entirely reliant on the benefit system because the mother of my baby son became acutely mentally ill with schizophrenia on his birth, causing maximum disruption to our lives.

Instead of the benefits system providing a ‘safety net’ enabling families to survive difficult circumstances, the maladministration of it systematically  destroyed our lives a little bit more every year, causing me to lose my house when it should never have been lost, for instance.

Finally becoming homeless in 2011 and evicted at only 24 hours notice by the fraudulent, dishonest Lehmans Bank’s equally fraudulent subsidiary mortgage lender SPML, the local council said it was not obliged to fulfill it’s statutory legal obligation of housing my son and me on the grounds that I was ‘Intentionally homeless’ because, in their view, I ‘should never have bought my house nine years previously because’,  the  council housing official said, ‘I’m gobsmacked you bought a house. As a single parent of your age, you should have realised you would never be able to work again’. This is a direct quote.

The poisonous council housing official said that it was her opinion that what I should have done was, instead of spending the £80 000 cash I had left from the forced sale of a previous, larger house (sold to avoid re-possession) to buy another one, I should have spent the £80k on renting a property. Then, when all that money ran out, I would have been able to claim the housing benefit allowance to pay the rent and therefore I would not have become homeless.

I was supposed  by this screamingly stupid person to have this gift of clairvoyance which if applied to everyone would require that no person should ever ‘take the risk’ of buying a house in case some time in the future unforeseen circumstances prevent them from earning an income and they cannot pay their mortgage which will inevitably lead to eviction – and it’s all their own fault for not being able to see into the future.

I was specifically told that I should have known that is what I should have done, rather than buy my own house ! It was made clear to me that the council official thought I had done something ‘wrong’ buying a house and she personally  disapproved of me buying a house and she had the opinion I should have rented accommodation and that is what she would have done, she said.

Therefore, this idiot continued, when I bought my house I would have known that because I would never work again I could not pay my mortgage and that would eventually cause me to be evicted (nine years later) & therefore I had willfully and deliberately caused my own eviction  thereby fulfilling the legal definition of being ‘Intentionally homeless’ by deliberately doing, or failing to do something that ultimately caused my homelessness.

This is a legal construct which allows councils to label a homeless person a ‘willful wrongdoer’ who because they made themselves deliberately homeless, does not deserve the support of the housing & benefits legislation designed to support people in statutory need.

While it may be reasonable to have the concept of being ‘deliberately homeless’ available so that it may be properly used to prevent obvious abuses of the social housing system, the sort of circumstances described above are a clear and quite ludicrous abuse of law. It seems impossible to imagine any court could allow this obvious abuse.

This is also not a unique case. I have come across many other examples of this legal point being mis-used and abused on a regular basis by many local councils up and down the country to enable them to avoid housing people they are legally obliged to house under Parliamentary legislation.

The completely sick joke about it all is that all of this is driven by the simple lack of having sufficient money in relevant housing budgets to properly deal with whatever housing issues need dealing with according to the law as it stands. But Government expenditure actually rises exponentially as a direct result of maladministration like this.

By mis-using and abusing law to weasel out of housing people in need just to apparently to save money, it actually ends up costing a vast amount more money because the State simply ends up spending much, much more money dealing with the various consequences resulting from people being made entirely homeless by a vindictive, deceitful & downright wicked State. This is demonstrated again and again by the disgusting behaviour of dim and small minded Government officials in both Central Government and in particular Local Councils who just make up the rules as they go along to suit their own warped minds.

So, in my particular case, no money whatever was actually saved by failing to obey the law which said the local council had a legal obligation to house a child & parent made street homeless overnight by a rapacious and dishonest and fraudulent mortgage lender.

My son and I spent over seven months in slum-like bed & breakfast accommodation in a cosy arrangement with Pakistani owners and the council which paid them about £1500 a month. I was told by one of these Pakistani’s colleagues how he also had a lucrative sideline in various criminal activities, including the criminal importing & exporting of empty container loads of wine to falsely evade & reclaim VAT and other customs duties.

Then there were other, huge, but not easily identified expenditures as a vast job creation scheme swung into action to gobble up thousands of hours of social services and council employees time dealing with all the ‘meetings’ ‘reports’ writing and box ticking that went on to deal with this ‘case’ which still rumbles on and looks set to continue rumbling on to infinity.

Finally, Government money is now being spent on paying an extortionate, unnaturally inflated rent to my private landlord who happens to be a banker, to pay his mortgage on the house I now live in, so he may become even richer by having the State buy him a house to rent out.

This house could, instead, be owned by the State, rather than a private banker landlord on the make and would then result in a mere fraction of the money that is being spent by this incompetent State maladministration being needed.

This particular maladministration of a housing issue I have personally experienced & described above comes at the end of a long catalogue of other abuses from my local council which include the ‘snooping’ whereby they discovered I was a company director by virtue of me having spent £20 on the paperwork of setting up a Ltd company with a view to becoming self employed in the future.

The council used this information (gained only by a ‘snooping’ process) to confabulate it into the idea of me earning money so justifying them to withhold council tax benefits and never repay what they wrongly/illegally withheld, thereby successfully milking me of some thousands of pounds from my sole income of single parent benefits.

It all quite takes your breath away really.

“A Patronising Attitude To Those Living In Poverty”

July 18, 2013

“The idea that the benefit system is overly generous and needs to be capped is ludicrous”.

“The tax-benefit system is unfair to people who are living in poverty. It appears to be generous, but it is not. Most people do not understand how unfair the current system really is”,  says Director of The Centre for Welfare Reform, Simon Duffy in the  centre’s newsletter.

“I recently attended a seminar on welfare reform in London”, Simon says, “where an eminent speaker summarised the welfare state’s function as ‘being for the benefit of the poor.’ Yet her audience (academics, think-tankers, civil servants) seemed, to me at least, to be the real beneficiaries of the welfare state. They were all on very high salaries, all enjoying very nice lifestyles, and all funded by the tax payer.

“It is almost as if, when we work for government we don’t see ourselves as beneficiaries”, Simon continues, “ instead we see ourselves as doing everyone else a favour by offering them our services. We believe we are fully entitled to our own salaries, to our pensions and to our power, whereas ‘the poor’ should think themselves lucky to be getting our services. This is self-deception on a rather grand scale and it encourages a deeply patronising attitude to those who live in poverty.”

Read the full article by clicking on this link here.


Simon Duffy  

Simon is Director of The Centre for Welfare Reform. In addition he is Chair of the Housing & Support Alliance and policy advisor to the Campaign for a Fair Society. Simon is also an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham’s Health Service Management Centre.

Simon is a philosopher and social innovator who works to improve the welfare system. He is a regular public speaker and government policy advisor, both nationally and internationally. His awards include the RSA’s Prince Albert Medal and the SPA Award for outstanding contribution to social policy.


March 1, 2013

And a  food industry making us ill with processed and adulterated food as well as contaminating beef products with illegal horsemeat.

Having just looked up what exactly naturopathy is, I cannot necessarily claim to be a disciple, but my immediate thought was that nearly every medical intervention I have experienced at the hands of doctors has been a disaster, many being unwanted & unnecessary & with consequential damage.

My fault has always been to trust the superior knowledge of the doctors and it has only about now that I can pinpoint accurately many instances of them being just plain wacky and not actually applying proper science, but more their own personal and often misguided opinions based on their own prejudices. I no longer trust them at all !

The most serious problem they have caused is quite interesting as it applies to so many people.

Doctors insisted in brainwashing me from the age of about twenty into believing I had firstly a duodenal ulcer, then they morphed that into  a hiatus hernia causing acid reflux which after utterly mismanaging for several decades they said medicine had now advanced so much that an exciting new surgical procedure could solve the aggravations caused by acid reflux. I stupidly believed them & had the op –  a fundoplasty.

A year afterwards a camera peering down my oesophagus showed that, in the words of the surgeon, “there was no sign of the fundoplasty ever having taken place”. But meanwhile, what had been a manageable problem has now become worse in that the hacking around of tissue with a sharp knife  etc has resulted in some scar tissue  and distortion of the end of the oesophagus which now means acid trickles slowly out of my stomach the minute I lie down – even if I haven’t eaten for hours. This causes extreme pain and would burn a hole in my oesophagus & kill me within weeks, or in the longer term kill me with cancer. All this means I now have to rely on taking a magic drug every day which stops my stomach producing acid.

So, should I find myself suddenly marooned on a desert island without access to the drug I will almost certainly die in a short time period. I am condemned forever to rely on the availability of this drug, without which it’s curtains. Thank you very much doctors.

And the mean minded paucity of the “wonderful” NHS insists on only (more…)


December 14, 2012

To the Head Teacher of my son’s school.


from a parent exasperated with the appalling quality of State education  in the UK.


Dear Head Teacher,


With regard to the detention my son received for writing a ’cheeky’ comment when the IT ‘technician ’ logged him off the internet yesterday.


I spoke further at length to my son about this incident and I am unhappy about the issue as follows.


I understand that he is being punished for being cheeky and I have absolutely no argument with that, but I am unhappy about him being logged off the internet because it appears to have been ill considered, inappropriate and, perhaps, downright silly & bureaucratic if his explanations are correct – and they seem to be.


My son tells me that in the IT lesson he was required by the IT teacher to produce a powerpoint presentation, to include illustrations. This involved legitimately accessing the internet to acquire relevant images to illustrate the presentation.


He wrote the two words in the Google search box  ‘Troll Comic’ to specifically access an image he had previously seen which he wished to use for this presentation, the subject of which was racism. I questioned him closely about this and he showed me this image when I googled it and it is clearly exactly the right image that would be appropriate in my son’s mind to illustrate the presentation as he  explained to me. He told me it was a suitable cartoon image which clearly appeared to be a ‘black’ person and my son intended obtaining a similar type of image but illustrating  a ‘white caucasian’.


It was therefore quite wrong for my son to have been arbitrarily logged off the internet and the ‘technician’ should have had the common sense to enquire of him why he appeared to be just googling comics to apparently – in the mind of the technician – read them in a lesson which would have then constituted an inappropriate use of the internet. But the technician failed to do their job properly in this respect.


It is therefore quite understandable why my son thought this was stupid and was consequentially irritated. This triggered my son’s response of ‘cheekiness’ in writing a silly comment  – ‘stop watching me you pervert’ – as his natural response.


I have pointed out to him that he should have written a non-cheeky, more intelligent reply and perhaps bothered to explain why he had googled that search term. But he didn’t because children are immature and behave accordingly. He now agrees with me he was wrong  and that it was immature and he should have written a more mature comment which would have resolved the issue more intelligently.


My son also told me he thought it was always pointless trying to defend himself against ‘wrong’ disciplinary accusations from the school and he never did this because it had always been his experience that it just got him into even more trouble in the end – even if he had been blameless in the first place.


This is something he has often repeated over many years and different schools and I know of some past incidents whereby my son has been absolutely blameless about something, but ‘has accepted the rap’ rather than try and defend himself. I think this is wrong and demonstrates an inadequacy of disciplinary procedures and it was not the generally the  experience I remember as a child.


This demonstrates the law of unintended consequences which is probably the single most defining evil of bureaucracy and the stupidity of the bureaucratic mind.


When my son explained how the school has a system of ‘policing’ the internet by means of having a full time ‘technician’ sitting hunched up over a computer all day randomly monitoring any IT lessons or other computer access by pupils, I was, frankly, astonished at the waste of money this represents and the nightmare overtones of Orwellian surveillance and thinking and apparent need to battle with the pupils perceived remorseless disobedience in inappropriately accessing the internet.


It seemed to me inconceivable that the average private school would waste the cost of a full time salary in this manner, or that it would accept that pupils were so uncontrollable that this was the only suitable option.


I just found it offensive to see what I perceive as the sort of State type control freak bureaucracy being used to deal with an issue, as opposed to the more sane solutions used by the more sensible world of the non-governmental, non-State world which tends to do things more sensibly and effectively.


I would make the point that simply making efforts to physically prevent pupils from accessing the internet inappropriately is probably utterly pointless because while you can do this in  one  environment such as either school or home, this will merely encourage pupils to be even more determined to inappropriately access it elsewhere, such as friends houses, mobile devices etc.


It is quite obviously physically impossible to completely prevent pupils inappropriately accessing the internet for this reason and therefore it is simply pointlessly bureaucratic and actually more harmful in the longer term to waste time and money to effectively actually encourage pupils to do the very thing you don’t want them to do in the first place.


Like drugs, it can’t be stopped in this blunderbuss, mindlessly coercive & bureaucratic kind of way; only by properly educating people can appropriate behaviour be achieved.



The only way to prevent any form of ‘crime’ or inappropriate behaviour is to train  people’s minds to be moral and law abiding etc and not to seek to achieve this effect by force, fear or the violent and repressive coercion of authority, because this will almost certainly achieve exactly the opposite effect.


It has always been the responsibility of the teacher taking a class to ensure any pupil is not doing anything ‘inappropriate’ and to employ a third party ‘policeman’ sounds horribly Orwellian and 1984’ish – with these unintended consequences I mention which have been wasting money on a salary, wasting your time, the time of the class teacher, my time, and alienating the pupil and the parent, and generally leaving a bad taste in everybody’s mouth. All the typical consequences of bad management and bureaucracy.


Which is why I am writing this.


Yours Sincerely,


From a  parent exasperated by the futile and bad management of State schools providing a lousy standard of education to UK children by the mindless pursuit of bureaucracy instead of getting on with the real business of genuinely trying to provide a decent education.


The State education system is idiotic, bad and utterly sub-standard in just about every respect and, like many parents I am completely appalled at it.


November 6, 2012

November 6, 2012

A countless army of morons have been bred, brought up and educated to be disgusting parodies of human beings by several decades of weasil -like “left wing’ UK governments .

These idiots are now employed  all over the country,  mostly by the government, but also by other large & bureaucratic  organisations, to run virtually all aspects of  every part of the entire UK basic infrastructure we all have to use daily just to function. These horrible people can be found absolutely everywhere – all over the place – and we have to deal with  them every day to get anything  at all done.

Here is the link to a Daily Mail story which is one of the latest examples of the poison infecting the UK. which is causing immense and stupifying damage to us all.




PUBLISHED: 12:44, 10 October 2012 in the Daily Mail




A disabled boy fell to his death because care home workers were too afraid to restrain him over ‘health and safety’ fears.

James Dean Brotherhood, 18, had brain damage and was susceptible to blood clots following treatment for a brain tumour, which was removed when he was eight.

But despite his medical history and the evident danger, carers at a specialist unit stood by and watched as James pulled himself up onto a windowsill with his wheelchair still strapped to his back.

Senior care assistant Dale Watret told the inquest that he was in the room with James when he climbed on the windowsill, but he could not physically step in to get him down because of a health and safety policy.

Coroner Robert Chapman asked Mr Watret if that was the firm’s policy. Mr Watret replied: ‘It’s health and safety policy all over the country, I am led to believe.’

He told the inquest he was concerned about being injured himself.

Mr Watret  said he shouted for help.

I said “Look, you need to come down because it’s dangerous”.

Coroner Robert Chapman asked Mr Watret: ‘Why didn’t you grab him?’

Mr Watret replied: ‘Health and safety policy states you don’t catch anyone to break their fall.’

The teenager fell and hit his head – and within hours was dead. His family have now received a four-figure payout.

When asked by the coroner why he did not intervene in the moments before the tragedy, one of his carers wrongly stated the home had a ‘no restraint policy’ due to health and safety rules.

James’s mother Suzanne said: ‘His carers said they didn’t want to move him or stop him because they were scared they might get hurt, but one of them was a 6ft bouncer – it was simply ridiculous’.

Read the whole story in the Daily Mail here.


Below is a selection of the comments Daily Mail readers made about this story of a horrible little carer of breathtaking  stupidity, nastiness, incompetence and inhumanity – Senior care assistant Dale Watret.

kate, canada, Canada, says:

Unbelievable idiocy, there has to be an element of common sense in the interpretation of best practice regulations and some degree of intelligence in those using them Those who stood by and watched this young man injure himself must be complete morons.

kate, canada, Canada,

Keith Jones, Wigan, United Kingdom, says:

Broken, stinking, rotting Britain at its best. Pathetic. RIP to the young lad and I apologise for my disgrace of a country and its disgusting politicians that run it xxxx

Keith Jones, Wigan, United Kingdom,

kiwigal, auckland says:

Good Lord Britains’ wake up while you still have a country! This is world class idiocy, and embarrassment.Is no one taught to actually think these days? If this is not a wake up call to regain some common sense then what is.

kiwigal, auckland

Balikiwi, Bali, says:

‘What a sad, pitiful, useless nation the United Kingdom has become. Full of selfish and greedy dumb-asses, cowards, drunks, addicts, thugs, child molesters, abusive parents, benefit fraudsters, thieves, embezzlers, and criminal immigrants, all protected by a web of nonsensical laws. If WW2 broke out tomorrow, the UK would be annihilated in days. Great Britain, sheesh. Feeble Britain more like. No backbone, no honour, no ethics, no hope.

Balikiwi, Bali,

D Walmsley, Leeds says:

Health and Safety is a load off rubbish, dreamed up by idiots in the public sector, who use it to keep them selves in work, and they cause more harm than good.

D Walmsley, Leeds

Chalky, Skegness, says:

Alas the so called do gooders have manage to turn our country into nightmare of illogical rules that almost dictates what we should think.Our political leaders appear to endorse this, they have turned our main services into a box ticking rules that suppress common sense.NHS- Police-Fire service- Teachers and many more are so restricted that they often cannot do their work they where employed to do. How did it happen?. Certain rules laws EU dictats often introduced for sensible reasons have been taken over by individuals by using their positions to extend the usage of these rule to make them cover area’s which they were never intended to cover. An example of this is the laws supposing to control terrorists are used to control many other aspects of our lives that they were never intended for. This almost an industry on it’s own the results have been well publisiced in the media. The fault lies with goverment who fail to control such people who in the main are civil servants.

Chalky, Skegness,

AS, USUAL, United States, says:

About 18 months ago a tourist helicopter crashed into New York’s Hudson River. 7 cops threw off their equipment and jumped into the river and pulled all the tourists to safety (that’s why cops in NYC are known as “New York’s Finest”). About the same time I was reading about 2 cops in the UK who stood by while a young boy drowned in a pond. Reason – they hadn’t received “water rescue training”. Pathetic.

AS, USUAL, United States,

Stu99, Birminghamsays:

I am a wheelchair user with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and my carers are told by the care agency not to catch me if I fall out of my chair. Apparently they might hurt themselves. They are also not allowed to pick me up from the floor; they must call the paramedics. Unless of course the house is on fire, because they would already be outside as they are not allowed to try to help me get out.

Stu99, Birmingham

shoeburywoman, shoeburyness, United Kingdom says:

I have a severely Autistic son who has meltdowns and who will punch himself hard in the face until his face is bruised and bleeding…I intervene before it gets to this point..but he is at home 24/7 with me on my own to care for him because of this ridiculous health and safety nonsense whereby care providers refuse to intervene in case they get hurt. He has never hit anyone else in his life and to me it is inhuman to standby and watch someone hurting or potentially killing themselves without intervening. The room shown to me shows what sort of home this has no personal items or decoration and is as uninviting as a room could be…I wouldn’t leave my son in a home like that. What are they going to do with the 4 figure sum??

shoeburywoman, shoeburyness, United Kingdom

filmex, Budapest and London, United Kingdom, says:

I recently prevented a young man from throwing himself from a bridge.into the Danube ..The easy option would to do nothing in case I got hurt or he pulled me with him or to let him have his wish and to die.. I am almost 80 but one surely does not hesitate unless one is part of the Health and Safety culture.. Thankfully he is having treatment for depression and I have seen him and his family since.and he is glad to be alive…

filmex, Budapest and London, United Kingdom,