Being a druggie or an alcoholic is now the route to reward in the form of extra benefits. Not only do good-for-nothing addicts have the door opened to them to claim benefits without looking for work, but they actually receive MORE than somebody who is right-minded and looking for a job.

Is this morally incomprehensible, or just something we have to accept with parasites both home-reared and from overseas who would rather suck on the nipple of the nanny state than work for a living?

Theres an alcoholic --the poor dear-- who lives not far from me and she actually gets a tenner each day from the lovely DHSS for an alcohol allowance!

I thought they were joking when i was told about it so i asked her.

I banged my head while at Uni earlier today. I must have hit it harder than I thought, because yet a again I find myself agreeing with Bartfarst. This is completely bonkers.

Genuinely disabled people dont wake up one day and decide to be paralysed, or whatever unfortunate affliction takes hold. I am however yet to find anyone who didnt choose to start taking drugs or drinking. Yet again those with no self discipline end up sponging off the rest of us.

Do you think that by publishing this those who don't get it may apply.
hazel

Theres an alcoholic --the poor dear-- who lives not far from me and she actually gets a tenner each day from the lovely DHSS for an alcohol allowance!

I thought they were joking when i was told about it so i asked her.

No she doesn't. That is a complete lie. 'Reliance on alcohol' (not how it is described in guidance, but is essentially what is meant) is part of the points-totting-up procedure used after six months of being off ill (whether from work if not eligible for SSP, etc.), or if not working, for someone to be eligible for the higher rate of benefit. In point of fact, it amounts to 1/8 or so of what is required. Similar applies to people who are dependent on drugs.

I post this from a professional point of view; please get your facts right.

I banged my head while at Uni earlier today. I must have hit it harder than I thought, because yet a again I find myself agreeing with Bartfarst. This is completely bonkers.

Genuinely disabled people dont wake up one day and decide to be paralysed, or whatever unfortunate affliction takes hold. I am however yet to find anyone who didnt choose to start taking drugs or drinking. Yet again those with no self discipline end up sponging off the rest of us.

i'm sorry but i dont think and hope that bartfarst is disagreeing with ppl who are genuinely disabled but giving druggies and alchys more disablity allowance is WRONG giving a drug addict more money is just paying criminals because drugs are not legal so the money will go into some dealers pocket

Do you think that by publishing this those who don't get it may apply.
hazel
Most of `em already know.
They were probably brought up to know the ins and outs of the services and probably could teach the DSS and the social workers a few things.
If they expended as much energy on a job as they do avoiding work theyd probably be masters of industry.

No she doesn't. That is a complete lie. 'Reliance on alcohol' (not how it is described in guidance, but is essentially what is meant) is part of the points-totting-up procedure used after six months of being off ill (whether from work if not eligible for SSP, etc.), or if not working, for someone to be eligible for the higher rate of benefit. In point of fact, it amounts to 1/8 or so of what is required. Similar applies to people who are dependent on drugs.

I post this from a professional point of view; please get your facts right.
Well she was lying then, As i said, i asked her and she said yes she gets it on top of her benefit, and has done for the past three years.

i'm sorry but i dont think and hope that bartfarst is disagreeing with ppl who are genuinely disabled but giving druggies and alchys more disablity allowance is WRONG giving a drug addict more money is just paying criminals because drugs are not legal so the money will go into some dealers pocketOf course I am fully supportive of anybody with genuine disabilities; though the boundaries of what constitutes a disability can sometimes by dubious.

Being a druggie or an alcoholic is now the route to reward in the form of extra benefits. Not only do good-for-nothing addicts have the door opened to them to claim benefits without looking for work, but they actually receive MORE than somebody who is right-minded and looking for a job.

Is this morally incomprehensible, or just something we have to accept with parasites both home-reared and from overseas who would rather suck on the nipple of the nanny state than work for a living?

You are talking nonsense. People who are off ill, and have to claim benefit, will receive the same amount as anyone else off work until they have to have a medical (six months from the beginning of the claim). Should they fail that (which most will, and do), they will have to claim JSA.

You are peddling untruths.

Of course I am fully supportive of anybody with genuine disabilities; though the boundaries of what constitutes a disability can sometimes by dubious.

3 disabilities that should not be included

1. the inability to not have booze at 8am for breakfast

2. the inability not to shove a needle in some vein

3. the inability not to pass up 2nds/4ths at meal times

Well she was lying then, As i said, i asked her and she said yes she gets it on top of her benefit, and has done for the past three years.

She will more than likely have had a raise in her benefit at some point at around that time (after claiming incapacity benefit or income support for a certain amount of time the rate goes up) and of course she will think this is an "alcohol allowance" - she's an alcoholic! In matter of fact, it isn't as happyhippy has pointed out.

I actually see this women buying vodka from the local shop and drinking it at 9am.

I mean, ugh! Makes me ill to watch her.

Bartfarst, this is a VERY contentious subject.

Could I ask you to post a source? A link, reference, etc.?

If there's no factual backing for this I'll simply regard it as trolling and remove the thread.

She will more than likely have had a raise in her benefit at some point at around that time (after claiming incapacity benefit or income support for a certain amount of time the rate goes up) and of course she will think this is an "alcohol allowance" - she's an alcoholic! In matter of fact, it isn't as happyhippy has pointed out.
I just mentioned this to my other half.


She tells me that there are several alcoholics living in a block about a mile from here.
All get the allowance.
They have to go and collect it from the DSS in Coalville each day.

She knows the owner of the shop that sells the alcohol and he told her that its the mainstay of his business, because we`re in a rural community he doesnt do much business but these people help, in their way...

I just mentioned this to my other half.


She tells me that there are several alcoholics living in a block about a mile from here.
All get the allowance.
They have to go and collect it from the DSS in Coalville each day.

She knows the owner of the shop that sells the alcohol and he told her that its the mainstay of his business, because we`re in a rural community he doesnt do much business but these people help, in their way...

Is that what they call 'Care in the Community'?

I just mentioned this to my other half.


She tells me that there are several alcoholics living in a block about a mile from here.
All get the allowance.
They have to go and collect it from the DSS in Coalville each day.

She knows the owner of the shop that sells the alcohol and he told her that its ther mainstay of his business, because we`re in a rural community he doesnt do much business but these people help, in their way...

There IS NO allowance ....... come on Jabber, this is a total urban myth ....... I can tell you that from having worked in Jobcentres, the Head Office of Jobcentre Plus, and as a disability rights adviser.

What cah I say? I cant prove it, but its common knowledge here.
Maybe its different here, but what can I say? Im not making this up for fun.

She will more than likely have had a raise in her benefit at some point at around that time (after claiming incapacity benefit or income support for a certain amount of time the rate goes up) and of course she will think this is an "alcohol allowance" - she's an alcoholic! In matter of fact, it isn't as happyhippy has pointed out.

That sounds more likely to me, but there are several other factors which need to be ratified before any entitlement to benefit can be determined.

What cah I say? I cant prove it, but its common knowledge here.
Maybe its different here, but what can I say? Im not making this up for fun.

No mate, it's the same all over the country ...... no different disability/incap. rules for different areas .......

No mate, it's the same all over the country ...... no different disability/incap. rules for different areas .......
Hmmm.

Ok, youre obviously the expert, in which case ill happily put everyone right here, including the shop owner who supplies the booze.


Actually, I might go one better. Im going to find one of these people and ask for written proof of this.
If its crapp then its an urban myth that needs dispelling.

Hmmm.

Ok, youre obviously the expert, in which case ill happily put everyone right here, including the shop owner who supplies the booze.


Actually, I might go one better. Im going to find one of these people and ask for written proof of this.
If its crapp then its an urban myth that needs dispelling.

If you get it, I'd love to see it :hihi: Seriously though, this sort of myth get trawled out every now and then, but really has no basis in fact.

It is surprisingly easy to believe though .......... a bit like Santa

Bartfarst, this is a VERY contentious subject.

Could I ask you to post a source? A link, reference, etc.?

If there's no factual backing for this I'll simply regard it as trolling and remove the thread.
It was read out on Radio 2 today.

This isn't news though - I know several alcoholics who claim incapacity because they allegedly are prevented from working by their condition.

You are talking nonsense. People who are off ill, and have to claim benefit, will receive the same amount as anyone else off work until they have to have a medical (six months from the beginning of the claim). Should they fail that (which most will, and do), they will have to claim JSA.

You are peddling untruths.
No, I'm not. The 100,000 figure came from the BBC - perhaps they're lying, but that's why I started the post.

From personal experience I have known 3 people, maybe a 4th, who claim incapacity and have little wrong with them beyond an inability to moderate their alcohol abuse.

JoeP, I have done a quick search only and can't find an immediate link, but Bartfast is spot on......I read it either yesterday or today from a reputable source, in connection with drug addicts and alcoholics getting sickness benefit from the State.

I don't believe he is trolling at all!

JoeP, I have done a quick search only and can't find an immediate link, but Bartfast is spot on......I read it either yesterday or today from a reputable source, in connection with drug addicts and alcoholics getting sickness benefit from the State.

I don't believe he is trolling at all!Well, not on this thread anyway :twisted:

It was read out on Radio 2 today.

This isn't news though - I know several alcoholics who claim incapacity because they allegedly are prevented from working by their condition.

Incorrect. The requirement of alcohol is simply part of the totting up procedure which is used in order to grant entitlement to an enhanced benefit. There are many other factors required for long term Incapacity Benefit to be awarded.

Simply requiring alcohol, or any other drug is NOT a way to IB.

In the time when doctor's notes suffice the amount of benefit remain at Income Support/JSA levels.

Incorrect. The requirement of alcohol is simply part of the totting up procedure which is used in order to grant entitlement to an enhanced benefit. There are many other factors required for long term Incapacity Benefit to be awarded.

Simply requiring alcohol, or any other drug is NOT a way to IB.

In the time when doctor's notes suffice the amount of benefit remain at Income Support/JSA levels.
I'm sure you're correct, but linked to the alcoholism/drug dependency come other health issues and head-full-of-broken-biscuits problems that generally fall out from drug dependency, and these people DO receive enhanced benefits.
Whatever your professional knowledge may be, I’ve overheard dropouts briefing each other on ‘how to fill in the forms’ to get it, and I’ve personally known several who have done so successfully.

That aside, why would the BBC broadcast a claim that 100.000 alcoholics and drug abusers receive enhanced benefits because of their dependency? That’s not my claim, it’s national news.

Being a druggie or an alcoholic is now the route to reward in the form of extra benefits. Not only do good-for-nothing addicts have the door opened to them to claim benefits without looking for work, but they actually receive MORE than somebody who is right-minded and looking for a job.

Is this morally incomprehensible, or just something we have to accept with parasites both home-reared and from overseas who would rather suck on the nipple of the nanny state than work for a living?

I wonder how many of them are ex - armed services? A fair number of alcoholics I've worked with have been - some simply can't cope with civvy street, some have been severely traumatised by things they've seen / experienced.

I wonder how many of them are ex - armed services? A fair number of alcoholics I've worked with have been - some simply can't cope with civvy street, some have been severely traumatised by things they've seen / experienced.Could well be the case. My ex-wife (may her twisted soul find its way to the seventh pit of Hell) worked in a secure mental unit and often expressed the unusually high proportion of people that she came across in her line of work that had been in the Services.
Must be something in the ration packs.

Shoeshine, Bartfarst - thanks for that.

Actually, this is a bit out of date, but may be of interest :

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/jad/2004/w193rep.pdf

It's a 2Mb PDF btw.

Could well be the case. My ex-wife (may her twisted soul find its way to the seventh pit of Hell) worked in a secure mental unit and often expressed the unusually high proportion of people that she came across in her line of work that had been in the Services.
Must be something in the ration packs.
Too right. Anything that stops you wanting a crap for three days must be playing havoc upstairs.

Three years ago I was admitted as an emergency, with heart problems to a local hospital. I was kept in a "holding" Ward until tests were done and a place was allocated at another General Ward. That evening, a young, well dressed guy turned up, complete with designer clothes and backpack, acting perfectly normal as far as I could see and occupied a bed across from me.

He slept peacefully that night and next morning his stunner of a girlfriend turned up, he asked about "where" his Methadone was, got dressed and waited. From the conversation between the pair it was obvious he had nowhere to sleep the previous night and they had agreed that his accomodation could be sorted out if he booked himself in to the hospital as a patient. The next morning he was travelling to a new city for a few days. He wasn't a down and out, he wasn't seen to take any Methadone in the ward........just asked for a prescription so he could be on his way.

I couldn't believe it. The hospital staff had no idea the couple had cobbled a plan for a free bed for the night for him.

That story is a true one. I was there!

They are into every trick in the book.

No, I'm not. The 100,000 figure came from the BBC - perhaps they're lying, but that's why I started the post.

From personal experience I have known 3 people, maybe a 4th, who claim incapacity and have little wrong with them beyond an inability to moderate their alcohol abuse.

In point of fact, if the BBC have broadcast this as described, yes, the BBC ARE effectively being irresponsible, and telling lies. I'd love to see the link, so I can quote it in a mail to them. As I pointed out earlier, the enhanced rate is only awarded to those who pass a medical after 6 months, and equally, dependency is only a small part of the eligibility criteria.

As you heard that on the Beeb, I will apologise for my accusation to you, of peddling untruths, however it doesn't detract from the fact that simply requiring alcohol, or heroin, and the like, is a passport to IB, and to say as such, IS indeed a lie.

Might I also point out that IB is dependent on NI contributions, and taxable? Those who qualify without sufficient NI contributions are actually awarded Income Support with a disability premium.

[edit: to clarify a legal point, with regard to the Beeb in my first para]

Im enjoying this thread immensely, but i have to watch Forest Gump-wifes orders.
But Ill be here during the ads!

I'm sure you're correct, but linked to the alcoholism/drug dependency come other health issues and head-full-of-broken-biscuits problems that generally fall out from drug dependency, and these people DO receive enhanced benefits.

Whatever your professional knowledge may be, I’ve overheard dropouts briefing each other on ‘how to fill in the forms’ to get it, and I’ve personally known several who have done so successfully.


Yes, I agree with the fact that there are associated problems, but as I KEEP saying, getting through the medical is the thing - before that medical certificates suffice. With regard to forms, I think you may be confusing Disability Living Allowance/Attendance Allowance with Incapacity Benefit, as, in the early stages, IB is awarded on a basis of fact from the claimant's GP.


That aside, why would the BBC broadcast a claim that 100.000 alcoholics and drug abusers receive enhanced benefits because of their dependency? That’s not my claim, it’s national news.

If I can see/find a link, or if one's posted, I'll be able to comment on their information and position. Which show was it? The listen again feature is available for 7 days. I'd be very interested to hear it, my friend.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/jad/2004/w193rep.pdf#search=%22100%2C000%20alcoholics%20and %20drug%20users%20get%20more%20on%20incapacity%20b enefit%20%22

This report (from 2000) shows many more than 100,000 drug/alcoholics claiming benefits.

However i would be very skeptical that people get benefits just because they are alcoholics. More likely they are depressed or some other illness. I am sure some are people who are disabled and as a result are depressed and use various drugs.

If I can see/find a link, or if one's posted, I'll be able to comment on their information and position. Which show was it? The listen again feature is available for 7 days. I'd be very interested to hear it, my friend.I honestly can't remember - maybe a news clip during Ken Bruce, in passing at around 1100 today?

JoeP, I have done a quick search only and can't find an immediate link, but Bartfast is spot on......I read it either yesterday or today from a reputable source, in connection with drug addicts and alcoholics getting sickness benefit from the State.

I don't believe he is trolling at all!
There was a whole programme dedicated to this very topic AND the Abu Hamza £250k house buy-to-let scandal on Talk Sport radio this morning.


Very sobering (no pun intended).

It was on The Jon Gaunt Show (http://www2.talksport.net/features/feature_detail.asp?show=100056&day=6&feature_id=100914).

I honestly can't remember - maybe a news clip during Ken Bruce, in passing at around 1100 today?

No worries Slarti - to be honest it sounded like the sort of thing Jeremy Vine would have on though ......... I'll have a look about, see what I can find ......

Three years ago I was admitted as an emergency, with heart problems to a local hospital. I was kept in a "holding" Ward until tests were done and a place was allocated at another General Ward. That evening, a young, well dressed guy turned up, complete with designer clothes and backpack, acting perfectly normal as far as I could see and occupied a bed across from me.

He slept peacefully that night and next morning his stunner of a girlfriend turned up, he asked about "where" his Methadone was, got dressed and waited. From the conversation between the pair it was obvious he had nowhere to sleep the previous night and they had agreed that his accomodation could be sorted out if he booked himself in to the hospital as a patient. The next morning he was travelling to a new city for a few days. He wasn't a down and out, he wasn't seen to take any Methadone in the ward........just asked for a prescription so he could be on his way.

I couldn't believe it. The hospital staff had no idea the couple had cobbled a plan for a free bed for the night for him.

That story is a true one. I was there!

They are into every trick in the book.

I believe that as much as I believe the moon is made of green cheese; which I don't.

To be honest, I don't care, I don't lay in bed at night wondering who is getting money they don't deserve, even though it's my taxes, it just doesn't bother me, there are bigger problems in the world.

To be honest, I don't care, I don't lay in bed at night wondering who is getting money they don't deserve, even though it's my taxes, it just doesn't bother me, there are bigger problems in the world.
Just as well you're not Chancellor of the Exchequer then! ;)

Simple solution to the problem... bring back workhouses. :thumbsup:

Whats the amount of people who are alcoholics and drug users NOT claiming benefits?

To be honest, I don't care, I don't lay in bed at night wondering who is getting money they don't deserve, even though it's my taxes, it just doesn't bother me, there are bigger problems in the world.And what could they possibly be?

Because if there are bigger problems, it would be nice for the government to have enough money to deal with them. The welfare state is - by far - the biggest drain on national resources and if we could eliminate benefit fraud and abuse of the allowances system overnight, we'd be rolling in dosh as a nation.

Less tax, more hospital beds, better schools, better roads, better care for the elderly, more Police, better equipped Armed Forces. That’s what abuse of the welfare state costs us, and you don’t see it as a problem?

Whats the amount of people who are alcoholics and drug users NOT claiming benefits?
Mmmm - and how many undiscovered species of insect are there?

Hard to know how many when many won't be registered.

I believe that as much as I believe the moon is made of green cheese; which I don't.

Insult my honesty ever again, and I will not hesitate to report you to the Administrators of this Forum! :mad:

I believe that as much as I believe the moon is made of green cheese; which I don't. :


Insult my honesty ever again, and I will not hesitate to report you to the Administrators of this Forum! :mad:
Don't worry Shoey - all he's done throughout the thread has been to doubt EVERY posting.

A case of head in the sand, methinks.

Less tax, more hospital beds, better schools, better roads, better care for the elderly, more Police, better equipped Armed Forces. That’s what abuse of the welfare state costs us, and you don’t see it as a problem?

You're hysterical dear, have a lay down and get your butler to fan you with the Daily Mail.

Seriously, why not focus your energy on doing something possitive in the world instead of constantly worrying about people you don't approve of doing things you don't approve of somewhere that you don't approve of.

Don't worry Shoey - all he's done throughout the thread has been to doubt EVERY posting.

A case of head in the sand, methinks.

As someone who has worked in this field for years, I can assure you that my head is nowhere near the sand, my friend.

As someone who has worked in this field for years, I can assure you that my head is nowhere near the sand, my friend.

One is judged by the society one keeps. You maybe have spent too long in the wrong section of society to accuse me of dishonesty.

An apology to me would not go amiss!

Don't worry Shoey - all he's done throughout the thread has been to doubt EVERY posting.

A case of head in the sand, methinks.

I beg to differ. I think that all the "stories" that have been quoted here that HH has had umbrance with have been at least partly if not totally rubbish. It all seems to be - "this fella i know told me that......" or "this friend of a friend has said....". As someone who also has some experience of working in this field i can back up HHs dubiousness (is that even a word....?) over these claims.

There are, and always have been a lot of old wives tales surrounding claiming benefit and especially IB/ IS, and most of them tend to be unfounded or at least people only getting a half truth and then peddling it to others as the gospel.

I'm sure you're correct, but linked to the alcoholism/drug dependency come other health issues and head-full-of-broken-biscuits problems that generally fall out from drug dependency, and these people DO receive enhanced benefits.
Whatever your professional knowledge may be, I’ve overheard dropouts briefing each other on ‘how to fill in the forms’ to get it, and I’ve personally known several who have done so successfully.

That aside, why would the BBC broadcast a claim that 100.000 alcoholics and drug abusers receive enhanced benefits because of their dependency? That’s not my claim, it’s national news.

To get back to the original point, I think it stemmed from a report in the Torygraph yesterday, but unfortunately I can't find a link to it. However, I have found one from the Grauniad which quotes the Torygraph as the source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6141917,00.html

Perhaps it's a little unfair to comment on a report of a report, but there is an error in fact, and a couple of things which are unclear here.

It says claimants are paid £78.50 a week, roughly £20 more than they would get on Jobseekers' Allowance.

ONLY if it is long-term IB (i.e., having passed the medical which I mentioned earlier). If it is short-term (reliant on the information provided by the GP on the medical certificate), then the amount is about the same as JSA. To say that is the amount that is received by all is an error.

It doesn't say if the figures relate to short term or long term claimants.

Government figures show 48,960 people were on incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance because the "primary diagnosis" was that they were alcoholics, compared to 27,100 in 1997.

This is also unclear. Severe Disablement Allowance was abolished (except for existing claimants at the time) in 1999, and so those claiming it are clearly long term; this isn't clear for IB.

It's important (probably the most important bit actually) to remember that one cannot claim IB, or Income Support with a disability premium because the claimant, his/herself, considers him/herself, to be incapable of work. That decision must be made for 6 months by a GP/consultant, etc. Without a medical certificate, no claim would be awarded.

One is judged by the society one keeps. You maybe have spent too long in the wrong section of society to accuse me of dishonesty.

An apology to me would not go amiss!

If you are intimating that the Civil Service and Disability Rights Workers are indeed the 'wrong' sections of society, then that is your call.

If you are intimating that the Civil Service and Disability Rights Workers are indeed the 'wrong' sections of society, then that is your call.

I am suggesting you are wrong to libel me on a public forum in the way that you have and have refused to ackowledge the fact! :(

I beg to differ. I think that all the "stories" that have been quoted here that HH has had umbrance with have been at least partly if not totally rubbish. It all seems to be - "this fella i know told me that......" or "this friend of a friend has said....". As someone who also has some experience of working in this field i can back up HHs dubiousness (is that even a word....?) over these claims.

There are, and always have been a lot of old wives tales surrounding claiming benefit and especially IB/ IS, and most of them tend to be unfounded or at least people only getting a half truth and then peddling it to others as the gospel.

Agreed, and the reason why this strikes such a chord with me, is because I have spent years mopping up the mess left from people who DON'T claim disability benefits when they should because they're frightened of the system, too proud (believe me, I've seen some sorry sights on home visits to some elderly people), unaware they can claim, etc.

When the shaggy dog stories, and Chinese whispers come out about "fill your form in like this" (which form is never mentioned), "he gets DLA and is working" (legal), "she gets a booze allowance" (risible), it's extremely annoying, not to mention barely based on fact.

At the end of the day, with regard to this benefit, nothing happens unless a medic (usually a GP) says so. Maybe we should look at them instead of stigmatising the people who are claiming legally.

I am suggesting you are wrong to libel me on a public forum in the way that you have and have refused to ackowledge the fact! :(

I have said I don't believe your story, or perhaps more accurately, you have only shown part of the story (the only bit you saw). What you saw will no doubt be true; I'm not convinced at all that your interpretation is correct.

I think a well-heeled gentleman would rather spend the night in a hotel (his 'stunner' of a girlfriend must have slept somewhere) that con a bed for the night in a hospital.

Agreed, and the reason why this strikes such a chord with me, is because I have spent years mopping up the mess left from people who DON'T claim disability benefits when they should because they're frightened of the system, too proud (believe me, I've seen some sorry sights on home visits to some elderly people), unaware they can claim, etc.

When the shaggy dog stories, and Chinese whispers come out about "fill your form in like this" (which form is never mentioned), "he gets DLA and is working" (legal), "she gets a booze allowance" (risible), it's extremely annoying, not to mention barely based on fact.

At the end of the day, with regard to this benefit, nothing happens unless a medic (usually a GP) says so. Maybe we should look at them instead of stigmatising the people who are claiming legally.

I don't have an issue with the pair of you in respect of the workings, and the non-working parts of the disability benefits. I make no claim in respect of the "stories" from sources other than myself.

Mine was a personal experience recalled in a post I made last night, for which I have markedly been called a liar by happyhippy!

A refusal to offer an apology by happyhippo speaks more of his/her character than it does of my own.

Stay with starting cricket threads happyhippo!

I have said I don't believe your story, or perhaps more accurately, you have only shown part of the story (the only bit you saw). What you saw will no doubt be true; I'm not convinced at all that your interpretation is correct.

I think a well-heeled gentleman would rather spend the night in a hotel (his 'stunner' of a girlfriend must have slept somewhere) that con a bed for the night in a hospital.

I will clarify for you then. The guy had turned up to stay overnight with his girlfriend at her parent's house and was refused accomodation by her parents. It does happen still, you know!

You are squirming out of the fact that you chose to quote my post and dismissed it as a falsehood!

I don't have an issue with the pair of you in respect of the workings, and the non-working parts of the disability benefits. I make no claim in respect of the "stories" from sources other than myself.

Mine was a personal experience recalled in a post I made last night, for which I have markedly been called a liar by happyhippy!

A refusal to offer an apology by happyhippo speaks more of his/her character than it does of my own.

Stay with starting cricket threads happyhippo!

I haven't called you a liar shoey, just that I don't believe that what you saw was in any way, shape or form, the whole story. I posted above that what you saw, was, no doubt, what you saw, but I don't believe that was the whole story. It's things like this which start the rumours, which lead to urban myths.

When the ICC Trophy kicks in then we'll get back to cricket!

Mmmm - and how many undiscovered species of insect are there?

Hard to know how many when many won't be registered.

Theres plenty of alcoholics & drug users registered seeking help because of their addiction ie Drying out clinics Gps etc

I haven't called you a liar shoey, just that I don't believe that what you saw was in any way, shape or form, the whole story. I posted above that what you saw, was, no doubt, what you saw, but I don't believe that was the whole story. It's things like this which start the rumours, which lead to urban myths.

When the ICC Trophy kicks in then we'll get back to cricket!

With regard to paragraph one above, I will waste no further time with you arguing the toss on this thread. As I said earlier, people will no doubt make their own minds up on the matter!

As for paragraph two, I love cricket myself!

Either way, I have no further time for you! :cool:

Crickets a girls sport anyway.




*Jabber runs for his life*

You're hysterical dear, have a lay down and get your butler to fan you with the Daily Mail.



Top put down....along with the Wicker man comment on another thread - had me laughing out loud.

I can't believe the anger on this thread in general. Even if alchoholism and drug dependency is a shortcut to small amounts of extra money, its also a shortcut to misery and an early death. The sooner we deal with these isues as ones of health as opposed to ones of crime/fraud/sponging which is where these discussions always seem to go, the better.

Top put down....along with the Wicker man comment on another thread - had me laughing out loud.

I can't believe the anger on this thread in general. Even if alchoholism and drug dependency is a shortcut to small amounts of extra money, its also a shortcut to misery and an early death. The sooner we deal with these isues as ones of health as opposed to ones of crime/fraud/sponging which is where these discussions always seem to go, the better.But the whole point is that it is 'crime/fraud/sponging'.

Health? People choose to drink, and choose to take drugs. Let them die if they have self-created problems, but not using the taxes I pay.

But the whole point is that it is 'crime/fraud/sponging'.

Health? People choose to drink, and choose to take drugs. Let them die if they have self-created problems, but not using the taxes I pay.

Well, we differ there. I'd legalise drugs and supply alchohol through pharmacies...and treat it all as a health issue. Throwing addicts into the legal system, when we could treat it as a health issue is where we go wrong in my opinion. This discussion has been done loads of times on other threads I'm sure - people on either side of the fence won't agree.

Well, we differ there. I'd legalise drugs and supply alchohol through pharmacies...and treat it all as a health issue. Throwing addicts into the legal system, when we could treat it as a health issue is where we go wrong in my opinion. This discussion has been done loads of times on other threads I'm sure - people on either side of the fence won't agree.
I've advocated legalising the lot as well – but in a different way.

It would put all the dealers out of business overnight, and the crime associated with it.

However, I wouldn’t treat it as a health issue, I’d welcome it as positive eugenics. Give the druggies all the free stuff they can fit into their mouths, noses or veins, let them die, and hope to goodness they haven’t bred yet.

get rid of the drugs get rid of the majority of street crime

get rid of the drugs get rid of the majority of street crime

Well thats no easy feat is it - prohibition has failed. Legalise and make it a health issue not a crime issue.

legalise it ,ok i,ll go with that make them work for their drug money then or does that get funded by the public while they lay about in a stupor

Health? People choose to drink, and choose to take drugs. Let them die if they have self-created problems, but not using the taxes I pay.

Indeed they do Bartfarst - but I don't suppose there are many people who make an informed choice to become utterly dpendent on substances. You may well, as I do, Bartfarst enjoy wine or beer or the odd G and T, but there are those amongst us who start to drink socially and then find themselves in a spiral of escalating use to the point where they quite literally become unable to manage without help.

Indeed they do Bartfarst - but I don't suppose there are many people who make an informed choice to become utterly dpendent on substances. You may well, as I do, Bartfarst enjoy wine or beer or the odd G and T, but there are those amongst us who start to drink socially and then find themselves in a spiral of escalating use to the point where they quite literally become unable to manage without help.
Which begs the question... is it is helpful or desirable for the state to pay people money to feed their addiction?

Indeed they do Bartfarst - but I don't suppose there are many people who make an informed choice to become utterly dpendent on substances. You may well, as I do, Bartfarst enjoy wine or beer or the odd G and T, but there are those amongst us who start to drink socially and then find themselves in a spiral of escalating use to the point where they quite literally become unable to manage without help.
And by helping them to live we are blocking evolution and weakening the human gene pool by keeping their bad genes alive to reproduce.

To be honest, I don't care, I don't lay in bed at night wondering who is getting money they don't deserve, even though it's my taxes, it just doesn't bother me, there are bigger problems in the world.

There certainly are nick2. But 'scapegoatism rules ok'! And druggies are always fair game to be blamed for the woes of the world.

Forget that many of them are ordinary people, often young and vulnerable, often victims of their own naivity and in most cases, despairing of their condition.
As for those who think that addicts enjoy life so much - try doing some research. Heroin in particular loses its ability to give much of a 'high' once the user is addicted. After the initial 'honeymoon' period it merely makes the addict feel normal. Most addictive drugs are the same in this respect including alcohol.
There are countless money scams perpetrated by governments that make the benefits bill look like small change. There is also the possibility that you and/ or your family/friends may be affected in some way, if not directly, by drugs in the future; - there by the grace of God - etc etc.

As for you bartfarst - a guy called Adolf Hitler had the same ideas as yourself regarding the treatment of people with mental/physical problems etc; and coincidentally, like yourself, he knew jack s*** about elementary genetics.

Botham for Prime Minister!!!!!!!!!

As for you bartfarst - a guy called Adolf Hitler had the same ideas as yourself regarding the treatment of people with mental/physical problems etc; and coincidentally, like yourself, he knew jack s*** about elementary genetics.Perhaps so. I don't claim to know a great deal about genetics - my biology stopped at 'o' level, but I don't need a PhD to know that you strengthen a breed by thinning out the runts, or that letting weak specimens reproduce is harmful to a breed.

If Uncle Adolf's ideals had been allowed to mature the world would be a better place now.

druggies are fair game, not has fair game has the old people that get mugged by these ***** or the house,s of working men & women turned over so they can fuel their habit

If Uncle Adolf's ideals had been allowed to mature the world would be a better place now.

Brilliant! You should consider having this for your signature :hihi:

Brilliant! You should consider having this for your signature :hihi:
I might just do that you know.

You really must make the effort to learn just a tiny tiny bit about genetics before I even begin to argue with you. For you are talking (and as far as I can see, have for some time been talking) total and utter b*****ks.
You also make the incorrect assumption that addicts are in some way 'weak' (something that you of course could never be described as being.)

However regarding your last comment, re Adolf, perhaps you are right all the low-life on the planet would have been the first to go - possibly including you,- with your pitiable spiteful and depraved excuse for a brain you would have been at the top of his hit list.
Strangely enough I've no problem in believing that you are related to Adolf; in which case,. in abject shame, he may have just exiled you to Siberia.
Must go I'll be back in the country by Monday or Tuesday - save your love for me till then .

You really must make the effort to learn just a tiny tiny bit about genetics before I even begin to argue with you. For you are talking (and as far as I can see, have for some time been talking) total and utter b*****ks.
I'll ignore most of your little rant - amusing though it was.

Please do educate me as to which opart of what I was saying about genetics was utter 'b******s'? I only said a couple of things - so it was eithert the fact that thinning out the runts strengthens a breed, or that allowing weak genes to reproduce weakens a species?

I'm fascinated as to how you will shoot down such simple and obvious claims.

Come on, I'm all ears :hihi:

If Uncle Adolf's ideals had been allowed to mature the world would be a better place now.

So now we know exactly where you're coming from, - presumably you also agree with the way 'Uncle Adolf' dealt with people he saw as undesirable :P

Did I read once that you claim to be a serving officer in the British Army ?

i cant believe i missed this thread,although whilst on holiday i did hear the JV show & wondered who'd start a thread on this issue.

So now we know exactly where you're coming from, - presumably you also agree with the way 'Uncle Adolf' dealt with people he saw as undesirable :P

Did I read once that you claim to be a serving officer in the British Army ?I agree with some of the Nazis' ideals, and vehemently disagree with others - not all of their vision for the future was bad.

I have not claimed to be a serving British Army officer, but I am a serving officer in HM Forces.

I have a friend who is an alcoholic .My friend in his life has sufferd both physical and mental abuse , kicked from pillar to post and nobody gave a dam.
My friend who's an alcoholic this year turned his life around with the help of our so called nanny state .With there help he has not had a drink for 10months with there help he now has a place he can call home and with there help he is now training to be a councillor I'm so pleased we have a nanny state , I'm so pleased my friend was able to get the help he rightly deserved.

I have a friend who is an alcoholic .My friend in his life has sufferd both physical and mental abuse , kicked from pillar to post and nobody gave a dam.
My friend who's an alcoholic this year turned his life around with the help of our so called nanny state .With there help he has not had a drink for 10months with there help he now has a place he can call home and with there help he is now training to be a councillor I'm so pleased we have a nanny state , I'm so pleased my friend was able to get the help he rightly deserved.

I'm glad to hear a good news story. I wish him well..........:thumbsup:

I have a friend who is an alcoholic .My friend in his life has sufferd both physical and mental abuse , kicked from pillar to post and nobody gave a dam.
My friend who's an alcoholic this year turned his life around with the help of our so called nanny state .With there help he has not had a drink for 10months with there help he now has a place he can call home and with there help he is now training to be a councillor I'm so pleased we have a nanny state , I'm so pleased my friend was able to get the help he rightly deserved.He did well - but it wasn't just the 'nanny state' that helped him through it all - he did so mostly by his own initiative. He's a success story, unlike many of the failures who will continue to blame their own shortcomings on the world around them.

I have a friend who is an alcoholic .My friend in his life has sufferd both physical and mental abuse , kicked from pillar to post and nobody gave a dam.
My friend who's an alcoholic this year turned his life around with the help of our so called nanny state .With there help he has not had a drink for 10months with there help he now has a place he can call home and with there help he is now training to be a councillor I'm so pleased we have a nanny state , I'm so pleased my friend was able to get the help he rightly deserved.
Most people have not argued that addicts should not receive help if they want it. People are arguing that the state should not give them money that they then spend on feeding their addiction. Doing so neither serves the addict or the hard working tax payer.

obviously if you give an alcoholic or junky money there is a strong likelyhood that they'll use it to buy more gear.

obviously if you give them a higher rate of benefit they'll be able to buy more gear.

obviously if someone is a user there may become a point when their health has deteriorated sufficiently for them to be disabled/long term sick etc.

obviously anyone paying tax would rather not find themselves supporting someones habit even though they may agree with having a society that 'helps it's citizens during periods of illness'

it all gets a bit blurred around alcies/junkies.

if you want to belong to a society that helps you out when you're down then
it might be usefull to look at curing addiction rather than hating people who self-medicate their problems.

unlike some here i don't see addiction as an indicator of bad alleles that need to be removed from the gene pool.

i see it as an indicator of trauma as in ptsd, shell shock, combative stress.
trauma recieved in childhood stays with you life long and undermines all your independant adult functions. however good your alleles, however good your job prospects, however many chances life offers, trauma can/will cripple your independant life and no ammount of threats, bullying or 'pull yourself together' will cause a traumatised person to miraculously heal.

there is no help from nhs for trauma
when there is no help for a crippling illness you do whatever you can just to numb the pain.

unlike some here i don't see addiction as an indicator of bad alleles that need to be removed from the gene pool.

i see it as an indicator of trauma as in ptsd, shell shock, combative stress.
trauma recieved in childhood stays with you life long and undermines all your independant adult functions. however good your alleles, however good your job prospects, however many chances life offers, trauma can/will cripple your independant life and no ammount of threats, bullying or 'pull yourself together' will cause a traumatised person to miraculously heal.

there is no help from nhs for trauma
when there is no help for a crippling illness you do whatever you can just to numb the pain.I'm sure that you see the glass as half full whenever you can, and want to justify the shortcomings of society's dregs.

I just see them as losers who can't deal with stress and problems, have no willpower and do nothing for society.
So, for me, the best option would be for them to be erased from the population. Sadly our lefty-do-gooder government won't do that, but at the very least I would hope that they'd be treated firmly, not given extra cash as a reward for their failure.

I'm sure that you see the glass as half full whenever you can, and want to justify the shortcomings of society's dregs.

I just see them as losers who can't deal with stress and problems, have no willpower and do nothing for society.
So, for me, the best option would be for them to be erased from the population. Sadly our lefty-do-gooder government won't do that, but at the very least I would hope that they'd be treated firmly, not given extra cash as a reward for their failure.

So if your son/daughter /grandchild was a drug addict you would be happy to see them eradicated?

So if your son/daughter /grandchild was a drug addict you would be happy to see them eradicated?If they couldn't sort themselves out - and I'd be willing to help to an extent - I wouldn't know because they'd have been thrown out anyway. However, all of my family, close and extended, are upstanding, morally robust people who do not take drugs. One cousin tried it once in his teens, and when he eventually recovered from the physical guidance his father gave him, he saw the error of his ways.

hi bartfast, you got me wrong on the 'half full' thing; i found the nhs had no help for trauma through personal experience.

i think you have deeply held convictions about anyone you class as weak and 'not pulling their weight' but you are a military person so surely you must have met tough and robust individuals who have cracked under the pressure?

combat troups are thankfully not all immune to the mental recall of atrocity, terror and helplessness. what kind of world would it be if at least a few people didn't loose sleep after witnessing suffering; both their own and others?

is there no thing that would play on your mind? - say accidently killing a kid in a fire fight? if the worst happened and you became traumatised wouldn't you be tempted to turn to drugs/booze when you found that normal pleasures no longer registered?

you must understand i'm not wishing trauma on you coz its for life( not just christmas) but please imagine what you might do if nothing gave you comfort, pleasure, purpose and security. not good huh?

hi bartfast, you got me wrong on the 'half full' thing; i found the nhs had no help for trauma through personal experience.
i think you have deeply held convictions about anyone you class as weak and 'not pulling their weight' but you are a military person so surely you must have met tough and robust individuals who have cracked under the pressure?
combat troups are thankfully not all immune to the mental recall of atrocity, terror and helplessness. what kind of world would it be if at least a few people didn't loose sleep after witnessing suffering; both their own and others?
is there no thing that would play on your mind? - say accidently killing a kid in a fire fight? if the worst happened and you became traumatised wouldn't you be tempted to turn to drugs/booze when you found that normal pleasures no longer registered?
you must understand i'm not wishing trauma on you coz its for life( not just christmas) but please imagine what you might do if nothing gave you comfort, pleasure, purpose and security. not good huh?
You're talking about a tiny minority of users. Most just slip down the route to harder drugs, or fail to control their alcohol levels, through either relatively trivial 'stresses', or none at all.

People who really do suffer trauma don't have to turn to drugs - and few do.

Your compassion shows through. Not only would you welcome death for your
own , rather than help them .You think it's OK to batter someone to make them see the error of their way. How sad !.

Your compassion shows through. Not only would you welcome death for your
own , rather than help them .You think it's OK to batter someone to make them see the error of their way. How sad !.Wrong on the first count - I said I would help, but I wouldn't let a wastrel pull my life down the tubes as well as his or her own. It's a theoretical question anyway as my family is above such base failure.

Correct on the second count. Corporal punishment used to work - and is a sad loss now both in our schools and at home.

Wrong on the first count - I said I would help, but I wouldn't let a wastrel pull my life down the tubes as well as his or her own. It's a theoretical question anyway as my family is above such base failure.

Correct on the second count. Corporal punishment used to work - and is a sad loss now both in our schools and at home.


To even THINK of helping to eradicate your son/or daughter beggars belief .
Beating the crap out of your son /daughter is not corporal punishment it's called physical abuse.

To even THINK of helping to eradicate your son/or daughter beggars belief ..I did not say that - I said that would help, but not to the point that I was wasting my time. There would come the day to say 'you are no son of mine'. It would be painful, but necessary.
Beating the crap out of your son /daughter is not corporal punishment it's called physical abuse.You infer too much - I did not advocate beating the hell out of anybody, you're just getting over-excited now.

bartfast hi, i am not wishing to get into a verbal fight with you but can you please substantiate your claims about 'minority of users' and 'people who really suffer trauma don't have to turn to drugs-and few do'.

also, can you not envisage anything at all that would prey on your mind? you know the accidently killing a kid thing? its ok to fight and kill an enemy but its not always that straight forward and clean is it? combat veterans often have flash backs - are they weak people or are they decent human beings who have a significant problem with seeing fellow humans converted into bug food?

You're talking about a tiny minority of users. Most just slip down the route to harder drugs, or fail to control their alcohol levels, through either relatively trivial 'stresses', or none at all.

People who really do suffer trauma don't have to turn to drugs - and few do.
Agreed.

Lots of people DO suffer various traumas in their lives for various reasons, I could mention many that Ive been through in my drag across the face of this planet- some of which I cant even mention here, but Ive had my share of nightmares and night sweats because of them, my other half can tell you of no end of night terrors that Ive had because of it, but Ive never once let myself turn to crack or cannabis or vodka or whatever the latest craze is.
I also know lots of people who went through crap that would make my moans seem like a walk in the park by comparison and they didnt even consider rolling up a sleeve and pumping their veins full of crud.

Its got to be a genetic thing.
A personality that allows addictions to take over their lives.

jabs why has it got to be genetic?

bartfast hi, i am not wishing to get into a verbal fight with you but can you please substantiate your claims about 'minority of users' and 'people who really suffer trauma don't have to turn to drugs-and few do'.

also, can you not envisage anything at all that would prey on your mind? you know the accidently killing a kid thing? its ok to fight and kill an enemy but its not always that straight forward and clean is it? combat veterans often have flash backs - are they weak people or are they decent human beings who have a significant problem with seeing fellow humans converted into bug food?Right, I’ve seen some pretty horrible things - the sort of stuff that would make the Ripper puke, seen people die and know too well the smell of the inside of a human body - not nice. I’ve been in fear of my life and suffered a bit of stress – and a lot of my colleagues have experienced either the same, or much worse.

People deal with things in different ways, but we all need coping strategies. The Armed Forces way is mostly to use taboo-free humour as a vent, and to get it out of the system over a few beers. Ask Andy McNab if he suffers PTSD after his time being abused by the Iraqis, and he’ll tell you that, other than gladly slotting the people who did what they did to him, he’s fine.

Some people are more robust mentally, some more fragile, and on the whole people who are selected for and trained by the military are quite roust – if they weren’t, we’d be swamped by basket cases.

jabs why has it got to be genetic?
It has to be genetic because Im not particularly strong. I dont have a will of steel yet i can control my urges to smoke and drink.
People who cant must have a reason, and the only reason I can see is at the genetic level.
Many people who are emotionally stronger than i am are addicted to all sorts of crap and want to get off of it yet cant.

hi bartfast, is there no theoretical max limit for you?
many brave fire personel can't eat pork - they're not weak but the smell triggers stuff they really don't need/want to deal with when they just want a meal.
are there times when unpleasent images get in the way of otherwise enjoyable activities for you?

hi jabs, just because you can't see the mechanism doesn't mean it has to by default be genetic

Your words not mine.

If they couldn't sort themselves out - and I'd be willing to help to an extent

Wrong on the first count - I said I would help,

hi jabs, just because you can't see the mechanism doesn't mean it has to by default be genetic
Well taking into consideration what i said, what else COULD it be? Is there another reason for someone to have an addictive personality?

hi jabs.... thats the whole point of what i'm saying - infantile trauma underscores everything a person is and is deep and shouldn't be discounted.


(edited rephrased bit: its so deep it could appear to be genetic)

hi jabs.... thats the whole point of what i'm saying - infantile trauma underscores everything a person is and is deep and shouldn't be discounted.
Infantile trauma? I had more than my fair share.
As I mentioned, Ive had my share of crap over the years. The closest i came to having an addiction is to this forum though :D

Infantile trauma? I had more than my fair share.
As I mentioned, Ive had my share of crap over the years. The closest i came to having an addiction is to this forum though :D
Mmmm - almost 10,000 posts. You need councelling, some financial compensation from the government, and a nice shiny new PC to further your addiction.

Mmmm - almost 10,000 posts. You need councelling, some financial compensation from the government, and a nice shiny new PC to further your addiction.
I cant help it! No one understand me! Its all because my mother was scared by an abacus when she was pregnant and carrying me!

hi jabs, if you say you love your mother i'm gonna have to call you a day-tripper!

hi bartfast, it must be soooo good to be that unshakably sure of yourself! you scare the **** out my but i also take my hat off to you.

I did love my mother! She died when i was a kid though so - and i hate to say this but i dont remember her that well.
What i was getting at is lots of kids lose their parents and dont grow up as alcoholics because of it. Lots of people have bad traumas and they dont turn to chemicals either, thats why I assume its a genetic thing to be prone to addictions that cant be beaten.

why do you love your mother? day tripper! was she not a source of trauma? (i'm pressing a point but actually wish you no ill)

why do you love your mother? day tripper! was she not a source of trauma? (i'm pressing a point but actually wish you no ill)
I loved her because I was genetically predisposed to love her by instinct!

now who's the one with dodgy genetics?!?

now who's the one with dodgy genetics?!?
All of us! Its programmed into all of us. Its a mammalian thing.

sounds to me like stockholm syndrome or maybe you just had a really nice start in life

sounds to me like stockholm syndrome or maybe you just had a really nice start in life
No its... Im not making myself very clear, am I? Mammals are evolved to care for their young and as a result, their young are evolved to care for their parents. Its a survival instinct.

hi jabs, if you say you love your mother i'm gonna have to call you a day-tripper!

hi bartfast, it must be soooo good to be that unshakably sure of yourself! you scare the **** out my but i also take my hat off to you.Oh, I must just be a whee bit psychotic

hi bartfast, i didn't like to say.

hi bartfast, i didn't like to say.:twisted:

I'm just a big softie really - and my troops come first, but my lack of tolerance for luvviness and tree-hugging is not uncommon.

hi jabs, so... (best phoney german accent) tell me about your mutter um, it vas all so good zat you still denk fondly off her ja? vas der no reason to sink she vas evil?

? bartfast.
a gentleman always prefers his troops to come first

? bartfast.
a gentleman always prefers his troops to come firstSteady nigsmig, steady.

Anyway - off t' 't' pub for a pint or two. And perhaps the odd grope of a barmaid if I can get away with it.

Where's my bottle of Rohypnol . . . . .

proudly politically incorrect! enjoy your pint(s) dude.

Anyway - off t' 't' pub for a pint or two. And perhaps the odd grope of a barmaid if I can get away with it.

Where's my bottle of Rohypnol . . . . .

The barmaid may take it without your assistance. :hihi: :hihi: :thumbsup:

Enjoy your pint or two Bartfast. See you on here later, or tomorrow! :thumbsup:

hi jabs, so... (best phoney german accent) tell me about your mutter um, it vas all so good zat you still denk fondly off her ja? vas der no reason to sink she vas evil?
Mein mutty was ein petri disch! Mein vater was ein augerplatzer.

Mein gott! ich bin sprech deutsch!
Hilfe! Hilfe mir! Ich kannes sprech Deutsch! Ich bin ein insel affen!
Was its los?!?!?!?

mein(e) mutty was ein petri disch - welll that explains all your culture!

It is correct Drug addicts do get full incapacity benefits for themselves and / or their dependants, they also get care allowances and DLA. They also get full Housing benefits and Council tax Benefits. They get many other forms of help also. One guy I know claims for the full allowances and even gets a car with part of his allowance. I cannot understand why they get so much money, But most of it is never spent on the family, I would have more sympathy with the families of these druggies if the oney was spent as it should be and these druggies tried to get help. They do not, Those I know sell the the methodone that they get prescribed and then by heroin. Leaving these drugs and needles around the house for the kids to play with. I think this is all Political Correction gone mad. There are so many ways to help these people, throwing money at them is not the way.

with respect i think it is wrong to say there is help. tried asking and not only denied but majorly arsed around

Sorry I may have put this in the wrong context.

The Government say there is help. I agree with you that help is very hard to get, But help is out there. I find that the one's that are paid quite a large salary to help are just complacent and look forward to the end of the month. However, There are voluntary help groups that are dedicated to drug addicts and their families. I also find that Politicall Correct Social Workers that have little or no experience in drug addiction are more of an hinderance than a help. I do sympathize with many addicts that try to get help. The same problem exists in the mental health fields help is hard to find. When a person eventually finds help, They usually find a very long waiting list. My arguement is the one's that find it difficult to manage the benefits they get whilst at the same time having to care for childen. This is a problem area. i know of a young woman that sat back in a daze, At the same time her child started to drink her methodone. Her reaction was to lose it with the child. There is no easy answer to the problem. But throwing money at addicts is not doing them a favour, Nor is trying to keep families intact. We need to help drug addicts in other ways. Money should be spent upon special clinics to give these peoplea chance to return to normal life. Then they can spend money upon the family and rehabilitation within the community. As I said, It is not an easy problem to solve. But wasting money by giving the drug addict all the benefits they get, This does nothing to help the situation. practical help is what is needed. But this Government seem intent upon throwing money at problems hoping they will just go away. The same goes for pensioners. Before anyone says anything. I am a pensioner and I would appreciate some practical help at times rather than the cash. My friend died as a result of hypothermia. She had little in the cupboards and no heating etc. yet she had 0ver £11,000. in a bag under her dresser. But there is also the one's that do live in poverty as well. Not only prnsioners are at risk but many single people that live alone and are unemployed, trying to keep a home on a few pounds. Much less than we as pensioers get. OK tell them to work. But many are dysfunctional and need help. Sorry guys, back to the point, Sorry for going on so long.

[QUOTE]There are so many ways to help these people, throwing money at them is not the way

You claim to know so much, but you are wrong on this. Help for people with emotional/mental/addiction problems has been cut to the bone. Prisons have to an extent become the new asylums, and so many in there are there because of drugs. Yes, taking heroin is a choice, but if you are in the extreme tortures of trauma, psychosis, or social dysfunction, and the health service and social service has let you down, you would seek any solution. The truth is, many of those in the throes of addiction are at the end of a life-journey beginning with abuse and devastation, with little chance of picking up social or life skills in the world they were born into. It's ugly and I don't like what I see in these people, but the real preventive/interventionist solutions that really work are threadbare and sparse.

I've been all the way to the limit of human existence, though i didn't take drugs, I found a different release (which I won't discuss here.) I still have attacks where I feel I would do literally anything to escape. There is massive underfunding of psychiatric and rehabilitation facilities and support. Throwing money at the people may not be an answer, but nobody shows any sign of throwing money at the support systems in any quantities that will genuinely make a difference.

***And on a slightly different note, not wanting to get bogged down in arguments, I'd like to mention something about PTSD and heroin, which was discussed previously. In the ground-breaking book 'Trauma and Recovery', reference is made to the many close studies of traumatised Vietnam Vets. One of the things researchers noticed was that certain Vets became rampant heroin addicts, and others just didn't feel the need. What they found in their surveys was that the ones who didn't feel the need to take heroin had a symptom called dissocciation, a wierd intense numbing that is euphoric but distancing, and seemingly a natural protective reaction to stress.

This sensation is caused by the brain flooding the body with naturally produced opioids, which makes a lot of sense in terms of self-protection in circumstances of major trauma. But the thing is, the people who didn't naturally produce these opioids, felt a craving and a need for that relief from their extreme pain and hell. I get dissocciation. I never turned to heroin. I used to joke to people 'I get like that naturally' having no idea that, biochemically speaking, I was actually speaking the truth! I just want to convey to people who may not understand, the platitude about 'self medication' is much more concrete than you could imagine.

And I would also like to say, that when it comes to PTSD, it isn't enough to say that you had a terrible time too and managed to get over it. That doesn't even come close. Those who get the full package is tantamount to having your brain rewired. You can't just get rid of it the way I can't just decide not to be female anymore, or forget to be an english speaker. It's there, in my brain, forever. And it's not a weakness, anymore than physical scars are under your conscious control.

Sorry, that's a long one even for me, but I really felt it needed saying. :|

Sorry I may have put this in the wrong context.

The Government say there is help..... Sorry guys, back to the point, Sorry for going on so long.

All that without a single breath! Have to say, it'd be easier on the eye if it were broken up into paragraphs... :thumbsup:

It is correct Drug addicts do get full incapacity benefits for themselves and / or their dependants, they also get care allowances and DLA. They also get full Housing benefits and Council tax Benefits. They get many other forms of help also. One guy I know claims for the full allowances and even gets a car with part of his allowance. I cannot understand why they get so much money, But most of it is never spent on the family, I would have more sympathy with the families of these druggies if the oney was spent as it should be and these druggies tried to get help. They do not, Those I know sell the the methodone that they get prescribed and then by heroin. Leaving these drugs and needles around the house for the kids to play with. I think this is all Political Correction gone mad. There are so many ways to help these people, throwing money at them is not the way.Sense spoken at last on this thread, and the help they need is to be insitutionalised and forced off the drugs, not given extra money to buy more.

I just mentioned this to my other half.


She tells me that there are several alcoholics living in a block about a mile from here.
All get the allowance.
They have to go and collect it from the DSS in Coalville each day.

She knows the owner of the shop that sells the alcohol and he told her that its the mainstay of his business, because we`re in a rural community he doesnt do much business but these people help, in their way...

I have heard about the allowance too Jabberwocky, can't remember who told me but it'd come from an alcoholic too.

this gets me soooooo mad ive just been told i nolonger can get incapacity ive been on this 4 4 years due to an on goin illness and now they say no to me but let the alcos and drug users have it wots wrong with them if anyone can tell me wot i could do about this i would be very greatfull

Getting back to Slarti's first point

It is correct Drug addicts do get full incapacity benefits for themselves and / or their dependants,

NO THEY DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY GET INCAPACITY BENEFIT. THAT IS A DECISION MADE BY THEIR GP, OR OTHER MEDIC. HOW MANY MORE TIMES???????????????

they also get care allowances and DLA.

EVEN MORE LIES. I am sick of the untruths which are being shunted about by people who have no idea of what they are on about.

They also get full Housing benefits and Council tax Benefits.

As does anyone else NOT drug/drink dependent who is FINANCIALLY eligible.

They get many other forms of help also. One guy I know claims for the full allowances and even gets a car with part of his allowance.

That will be the motability scheme, where his mobility component of DLA is used for the car. He wouldn't see a penny of it himself in cash. And if he is eligible for help, why shouldn't he have it?

I cannot understand why they get so much money, But most of it is never spent on the family,

It's not meant to be. It's to help with his care and mobility needs.

I would have more sympathy with the families of these druggies if the oney was spent as it should be and these druggies tried to get help. They do not, Those I know sell the the methodone that they get prescribed and then by heroin. Leaving these drugs and needles around the house for the kids to play with. I think this is all Political Correction gone mad. There are so many ways to help these people, throwing money at them is not the way.

If you had any idea of why the benefits are given in the first place, I'd give your comments some credence.

Can we please realise AT LEAST ONE THING? Disability Living Allowance, or Attendance Allowance can NEVER be awarded to ANYONE as a result of ANY addiction at all.

And, yes, people receiving it are allowed to work. It's the sort of attitude displayed above which prevents truly deserving people from claiming benefit (as I have outlined previously), especially with regard to older people.

this gets me soooooo mad ive just been told i nolonger can get incapacity ive been on this 4 4 years due to an on goin illness and now they say no to me but let the alcos and drug users have it wots wrong with them if anyone can tell me wot i could do about this i would be very greatfull

PM me with details and I'll try to help.

Sense spoken at last on this thread, and the help they need is to be insitutionalised and forced off the drugs, not given extra money to buy more.

It was not sense at all, but utterly incorrect.

It was not sense at all, but utterly incorrect.


happyhippy the government released figures of 100,000 alco's & druggies who recieve full incapacity benefit as the have an illness prescribed by their Drs.
recieving between £40 and £75 per week FREE.

how can you dispute a publicly acknowledged figure.

it is therefore benefitial for either druggies or alco's to turn up to see their Dr in a state of disbalement, in order to continually be assessed as unfit for work.
surely £75 a week is better than nothing,which is why it is an evere increasing spiral of abuse & claim.

how they can define drug abuse as an illness i'll never know.
it is an an addiction not an illness.just like getting pregnant isn't an illness.
no doubt some liberal do gooder will say "addiction is a mental illness".

drug,alcohol & substance abuse is a sign of weakness,not illness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartfarst
Sense spoken at last on this thread, and the help they need is to be insitutionalised and forced off the drugs, not given extra money to buy more.
It was not sense at all, but utterly incorrect.I think it's safe to say that our views differ, quite markedly.

happyhippy the government released figures of 100,000 alco's & druggies who recieve full incapacity benefit as the have an illness prescribed by their Drs.
recieving between £40 and £75 per week FREE.

how can you dispute a publicly acknowledged figure.

it is therefore benefitial for either druggies or alco's to turn up to see their Dr in a state of disbalement, in order to continually be assessed as unfit for work.
surely £75 a week is better than nothing,which is why it is an evere increasing spiral of abuse & claim.

how they can define drug abuse as an illness i'll never know.
it is an an addiction not an illness.just like getting pregnant isn't an illness.
no doubt some liberal do gooder will say "addiction is a mental illness".

drug,alcohol & substance abuse is a sign of weakness,not illness.
Another convincing post - but there's bound to be some head-in-the-sand do-gooder who will contest it.

happyhippy the government released figures of 100,000 alco's & druggies who recieve full incapacity benefit as the have an illness prescribed by their Drs.
recieving between £40 and £75 per week FREE.

how can you dispute a publicly acknowledged figure.

Read my posts. I'm not disputing the numbers of claimants.

it is therefore benefitial for either druggies or alco's to turn up to see their Dr in a state of disbalement, in order to continually be assessed as unfit for work.
surely £75 a week is better than nothing,which is why it is an evere increasing spiral of abuse & claim.

Well for a start it wouldn't be nothing, as they would be entitled to Income Support or JSA (dependent on circimstances), and, as I continually have to point out, they can only claim Incap., or not be required to seek work, if their GP says so. Neither of us are doctors (I presume you're not!), and they should know their patients' medical state better than anyone.

how they can define drug abuse as an illness i'll never know.
it is an an addiction not an illness.just like getting pregnant isn't an illness.
no doubt some liberal do gooder will say "addiction is a mental illness".

drug,alcohol & substance abuse is a sign of weakness,not illness.

If the doctors see fit to sign someone off for it, that is up to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartfarst
Sense spoken at last on this thread, and the help they need is to be insitutionalised and forced off the drugs, not given extra money to buy more.
I think it's safe to say that our views differ, quite markedly.

For once we agree!

Hmmm....
I wonder if theyll give me a cig allowance if i tell them im addicted....


*Jabber legs it*

isn't it sooo tempting to give up your job and become an alcoholic or a druggie?

Another convincing post - but there's bound to be some head-in-the-sand do-gooder who will contest it.

As there is some nutter who would have them eradicated of the planet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartfarst
Another convincing post - but there's bound to be some head-in-the-sand do-gooder who will contest it.
As there is some nutter who would have them eradicated of the planet.What - the do-gooders?

how they can define drug abuse as an illness i'll never know.


Exactly. Leave it to professionals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartfarst
Another convincing post - but there's bound to be some head-in-the-sand do-gooder who will contest it.
What - the do-gooders?

No-the look at me .I am so superior to those that are weaker than i am.

happyhippy the government released figures of 100,000 alco's & druggies who recieve full incapacity benefit as the have an illness prescribed by their Drs.
recieving between £40 and £75 per week FREE.

how can you dispute a publicly acknowledged figure.

In point of fact willman, this quote:

It was not sense at all, but utterly incorrect.

was in response to Slarti:

Sense spoken at last on this thread, and the help they need is to be insitutionalised and forced off the drugs, not given extra money to buy more.

in response to Rodgers:

It is correct Drug addicts do get full incapacity benefits for themselves and / or their dependants, they also get care allowances and DLA. They also get full Housing benefits and Council tax Benefits. They get many other forms of help also. One guy I know claims for the full allowances and even gets a car with part of his allowance. I cannot understand why they get so much money, But most of it is never spent on the family, I would have more sympathy with the families of these druggies if the oney was spent as it should be and these druggies tried to get help. They do not, Those I know sell the the methodone that they get prescribed and then by heroin. Leaving these drugs and needles around the house for the kids to play with. I think this is all Political Correction gone mad. There are so many ways to help these people, throwing money at them is not the way.

Nowhere have I disputed the figures regarding the number of claimants.

And, yes, people receiving it are allowed to work.It's the sort of attitude displayed above which prevents truly deserving people from claiming benefit (as I have outlined previously), especially with regard to older people.

That doesn't make sense, why would someone who is able to work and capable of it be allowed to claim benefits also, now i'm pretty sure if you claim benefits you are NOT allowed to work. Proof please!

That doesn't make sense, why would someone who is able to work and capable of it be allowed to claim benefits also, now i'm pretty sure if you claim benefits you are NOT allowed to work. Proof please!

Disability Living Allowance is a benefit which is paid to disabled people if they have care or mobility needs. It is NOT for people who are incapable of work, but for those who are disabled.

Disability Living Allowance is a benefit which is paid to disabled people if they have care or mobility needs. It is NOT for people who are incapable of work, but for those who are disabled.

So your telling me that someone who works say 40 hours a week and has a disability can still claim it?

So your telling me that someone who works say 40 hours a week and has a disability can still claim it?

That's right.

So your telling me that someone who works say 40 hours a week and has a disability can still claim it?


Here is a linky (http://www.direct.gov.uk/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/FinancialSupportArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10011731&chk=j4gVFM)all about it

I have just looked at this thread.
Are you saying that if someone is signed off work by way of alcoholism, that they are given £10 per day to buy drink?
That has got to be nonsense.
They are getting full IB plus another £70?

If that were the case anyone could claim it, you could pay off quite decent mortgage on £280 per month plus mortgage assisstance already given. Just turn up at the docs with a hangover! I dont think the DSS are such a soft touch myself.

Anyway surely it is breach of a persons human rights, we are supposed to curing them, not killing them!

I have just looked at this thread.
Are you saying that if someone is signed off work by way of alcoholism, that they are given £10 per day to buy drink?
That has got to be nonsense.
They are getting full IB plus another £70?

Correct, that is nonsense. The people in question are in receipt of IB, or IS with a disability premium if they have been off long enough. The length of the claims isn't clear, but it's only after the claimant has been deemed incapable of work following a medical (which takes place after 26 weeks of being signed off) that they receive an enhanced rate of benefit.

that they receive an enhanced rate of benefit.

Would that be a tenner a day?

Would that be a tenner a day?

No, it's about £20 p/w.

If the doctors see fit to sign someone off for it, that is up to them.


it is up to the doctors, who then allow drunkards & druggies with no intention of working claim enough money to get by on each week.

i dont get £70 a week to spend on booze or on anything else in actual, and i work for a living, not sponging of the state.

drug addiction & alcoholism IMHO is not an illness, they should therefore not get any additional fianancial assistance based on ILLNESS or DISABILITY.


how can a self inflicted state be classed as ILLNESS or DISABILITY

If I had my way, Drug dealers would face the death sentence or life in a real jail, Users would face forced rehabilitation, As well as incarceration till they are clean, Revert back and they would also face life in jail. There are ways that can help Alco's, and also drug addicts, The problem being, We are hampered by the Human Rights and Civil Liberties groups. They care more for the rights of these criminals than they do the rights of the upstanding and honest citizen. There are a medical procedure that will stop a lot of crime and many other legal habits such as smoking etc. Some time ago, There was an experiment with subliminal images in an american prison. despite the fact that this was working, It was stopped by the U.N Human Rights Commission. Surely, If we can use this as well as the Brain Ops suggested by the American Doctor Webster Lanley, Then we can cut down on many serious crimes. I only oppose this because, I get worried as to how far the Americans will go in this field. Where do we draw the line. I tried to help one of my relatives to get hypnotherapy for a problem he has. This treatment also helps, But again we came up against the civil rights act. ( Long Story ). It should not be left to voluntary groups to take on this problem. i do agree we should put more money into the treatment of addicts and also help the families of these people. lets not forget that they are also innocent victims of the drug culture. Till recently I dealt with benefits problems. I myself was amazed to find that so much money was paid to drug addicts. But, I found out that many of them had found ways around the system and were defrauding the system also. I found this again with the ADHD claims that are made for children and also paid for adults supposedly suffering from this condition. The Benefits system is systamatically abused and defrauded by these people who get advice from some very clever people. Much more money should be ploughed into practical help and in treatent centres as a first line to help them. But we must admit there are those that we will never help. In these cases then stop their money, If they turn to crime as a result, Then jail them in a real jail not a cushy open jail. There are no easy answers, we all have good ideas. If I was the person making these decisions, Then the first place I would look is on this forum. There are many good and valid points being made by members. But, We are all affected in one way or another by drugs and alcholol. As for smoking. I have smoked heavy all my life from being 14. I have eaten what I want when I want. I have had a good life with plenty of excercise. I am 60 years old and the only problem I have is arthritis caused by a stabbing. I am 60+ and feel well. Get to the point.......We have people telling us how to live our lives, We are turning into a nanny state. We need to educate people not force our views upon them as is happening now...

it is up to the doctors, who then allow drunkards & druggies with no intention of working claim enough money to get by on each week.

i dont get £70 a week to spend on booze or on anything else in actual, and i work for a living, not sponging of the state.

drug addiction & alcoholism IMHO is not an illness, they should therefore not get any additional fianancial assistance based on ILLNESS or DISABILITY.

how can a self inflicted state be classed as ILLNESS or DISABILITY

Self inflicted or not, are you trying to tell me that a psychological condition which can also have physical symptoms, which can be treated, overcome and cured isn't an illness?

If I had my way, Drug dealers would face the death sentence or life in a real jail, Users would face forced rehabilitation, As well as incarceration till they are clean, Revert back and they would also face life in jail. There are ways that can help Alco's, and also drug addicts, The problem being, We are hampered by the Human Rights and Civil Liberties groups. They care more for the rights of these criminals than they do the rights of the upstanding and honest citizen. There are a medical procedure that will stop a lot of crime and many other legal habits such as smoking etc. Some time ago, There was an experiment with subliminal images in an american prison. despite the fact that this was working, It was stopped by the U.N Human Rights Commission. Surely, If we can use this as well as the Brain Ops suggested by the American Doctor Webster Lanley, Then we can cut down on many serious crimes. I only oppose this because, I get worried as to how far the Americans will go in this field. Where do we draw the line. I tried to help one of my relatives to get hypnotherapy for a problem he has. This treatment also helps, But again we came up against the civil rights act. ( Long Story ). It should not be left to voluntary groups to take on this problem. i do agree we should put more money into the treatment of addicts and also help the families of these people. lets not forget that they are also innocent victims of the drug culture. Till recently I dealt with benefits problems. I myself was amazed to find that so much money was paid to drug addicts. But, I found out that many of them had found ways around the system and were defrauding the system also. I found this again with the ADHD claims that are made for children and also paid for adults supposedly suffering from this condition. The Benefits system is systamatically abused and defrauded by these people who get advice from some very clever people. Much more money should be ploughed into practical help and in treatent centres as a first line to help them. But we must admit there are those that we will never help. In these cases then stop their money, If they turn to crime as a result, Then jail them in a real jail not a cushy open jail. There are no easy answers, we all have good ideas. If I was the person making these decisions, Then the first place I would look is on this forum. There are many good and valid points being made by members. But, We are all affected in one way or another by drugs and alcholol. As for smoking. I have smoked heavy all my life from being 14. I have eaten what I want when I want. I have had a good life with plenty of excercise. I am 60 years old and the only problem I have is arthritis caused by a stabbing. I am 60+ and feel well. Get to the point.......We have people telling us how to live our lives, We are turning into a nanny state. We need to educate people not force our views upon them as is happening now...t..you know as well as i do that when you lived on kelvin it was rife with druggies, the police refused to go on the landing when bobo had a blues night every other friday,despite dozens of complaints from neighbours who had to endure the loud bass beat and the noise all weekend
the replyb from the police was,"were keeping a low profile " well with a statement like that no wonder the drug dealers get rich,the rot spreads and as the o.p says,we end up with thousands on the dole, why ? labour said they would allow you to carry enough for your own use.....bullshixe, if you use it ure breaking the law,its the dole money that buys the stuff,stop the giro for the addicts,get them in rehab,if they offend again put them away,this would also clear up the majority of prostitution in our city, theres one on upperthorpe who you know well,we all know him,he hasnt worked in 35 years, skinny vin, he gets into the pub every day,he gets his stuff at the chemist for free,he lives with his girlfriend in a rent free tower block flat,whos the fool,? the taxpayer or the drug user ?

Self inflicted or not, are you trying to tell me that a psychological condition which can also have physical symptoms, which can be treated, overcome and cured isn't an illness?


until the person either a) takes the first drink or b) takes a drug their are no symptoms and no condition.
it is the fact that it is self inflicted that galls me.you dont become an aloc or druggie overnight.

if it had been forced on them under torture or through neglectful medication causing addiction fine.
.

i feel i have to say this..a lot of alchoholics and drug users are ex forces, the stress they are under forces them to drink,plus peer pressure, amphetimines are used on long haul manouvers to keep them awake,its not just the british army,the usa are well known for it, but when your time is up you are just dumped out on the street, the comarardarie has gone,the binges on cheap beer in foregn lands dissapear,the mates waking you up for duty,are still in,your out,look to yourself, any ex squaddie will tell you tales of drinking binges that lasted days,it was the only stress relief they got, any one on here who has served in northern ireland will tell you, if you were involved in a contact with the i r a ,the first thing said to you as you got out of the landrover in the barracks was "get your tin" (a can of beer) not much changed in 70 years since the first world war,when you got your rum ration,just before going over the top........

until the person either a) takes the first drink or b) takes a drug their are no symptoms and no condition.
it is the fact that it is self inflicted that galls me.you dont become an aloc or druggie overnight.

if it had been forced on them under torture or through neglectful medication causing addiction fine.
.

Self inflicted or not, are you trying to tell me that a psychological condition which can also have physical symptoms, which can be treated, overcome and cured isn't an illness?

Self inflicted or not, are you trying to tell me that a psychological condition which can also have physical symptoms, which can be treated, overcome and cured isn't an illness?


nope i'm saying alcoholism & drug abuse isn't an illness IMHO and it definitely isn't a disability.

nope i'm saying alcoholism & drug abuse isn't an illness IMHO and it definitely isn't a disability.

a psychological condition which can also have physical symptoms, which can be treated, overcome and cured isn't an illness?

Seems to fit the criteria to me.

t..you know as well as i do that when you lived on kelvin it was rife with druggies, the police refused to go on the landing when bobo had a blues night every other friday,despite dozens of complaints from neighbours who had to endure the loud bass beat and the noise all weekend
the replyb from the police was,"were keeping a low profile " well with a statement like that no wonder the drug dealers get rich,the rot spreads and as the o.p says,we end up with thousands on the dole, why ? labour said they would allow you to carry enough for your own use.....bullshixe, if you use it ure breaking the law,its the dole money that buys the stuff,stop the giro for the addicts,get them in rehab,if they offend again put them away,this would also clear up the majority of prostitution in our city, theres one on upperthorpe who you know well,we all know him,he hasnt worked in 35 years, skinny vin, he gets into the pub every day,he gets his stuff at the chemist for free,he lives with his girlfriend in a rent free tower block flat,whos the fool,? the taxpayer or the drug user ?


We have all become the victims of Political Correction. Blunkett in his wisdom or should I say the lack of it , has much to answer for. Yes . I would lock them away and throw away the key. Yes. The Polce are so soft on this that it is becoming a way of life, To say they do not care, Is wrong. They do, their hands are tied. They arrest them, They are back on the streets in no time at all. They become complacent and are even accused of being Racist, Sexist whatever when they try to arrest some of these scum. Drugs and alcohol are resonsible for much of the crime we have to contend with. But whilst we have the do-gooders running things, We are in trouble. All of us know of someone that is just a burden on the state. Some like ex servicemen need the help they have been denied. I myself am lucky, After coming out of the army I had support and a loving family. there was no dole money, We were means tested. But what we saved for then and the lives we are building for ourselves now is just being destroyed by the scum in society. We seem the help the same people time and time again. The same people in Courts, The same people that break into our homes and destroy our lives. It is a minority of society. But what do we do with them. I sometimes see some of the bad lads from over Kelvin, Some of them have done well, accepted help, But I see three at least that have been helped so many times that they no longer deserve help. Yet these same three, Well known characters get loads of dosh from the system, Have never done a days work in their lives, stole from their own families. These scum do not deserve help. They need a daily dose of the whip.

Seems to fit the criteria to me.


which is why we have a difference of opinion.
a psychological disorder that could be resolved could be OCD, or ADHD(which i doubt exists) or depression.

alcoholics choose to be alcoholic, drug users choose to use drugs.just like fags if they want to give it up they can.

until the person either a) takes the first drink or b) takes a drug their are no symptoms and no condition.
it is the fact that it is self inflicted that galls me.you dont become an aloc or druggie overnight.

And you could have a million drinks over years and years and years, and not be addicted. Others may have a lot less, and have psychological and/or physical addiction. All of which is irrelevant really, as medical opinion and the law is what matters, and both say that addiction counts toward qualifying for the full benefit.

alcoholics choose to be alcoholic, drug users choose to use drugs.just like fags if they want to give it up they can.

Don't be so crass. Nobody chooses to be an addict - it happens.

that could be resolved could be OCD, or ADHD(which i doubt exists) or depression.



You doubt OCD or ADHD exists? I think i love you..........

And you could have a million drinks over years and years and years, and not be addicted. Others may have a lot less, and have psychological and/or physical addiction. All of which is irrelevant really, as medical opinion and the law is what matters, and both say that addiction counts toward qualifying for the full benefit.


we all know what the law states which is why we're on here complaining.

'cos we(I) think its a stupid law and demeaning to people who are actually DISABLED.

. We need to educate people not force our views upon them as is happening now...

Well if your ramble isn't a forcing of views, I don't know what is.

You doubt OCD or ADHD exists? I think i love you..........

no i doubt adhd actually exists. i'm sure the people have problems but i think ADHD is a cover all umbrella diagnosis for lots of unknown problems.

Don't be so crass. Nobody chooses to be an addict - it happens.

now that is total ******xxxxxx.
you get up you decide "i dont want a fag/drink/spliff" - dead easy.

otherwise pray tell why people given drug alternatives or nicorette or £75 a week for booze don't quit.
they only stop when they get HELP to encourage them to STOP.

no i doubt adhd actually exists. i'm sure the people have problems but i think ADHD is a cover all umbrella diagnosis for lots of unknown problems.

I still love you

we all know what the law states which is why we're on here complaining.

'cos we(I) think its a stupid law and demeaning to people who are actually DISABLED.

So mental disabilities are less important than physical, (or visible to others) disabilities (this is the sort of inference I'm taking from you)?

We have all become the victims of Political Correction. Blunkett in his wisdom or should I say the lack of it , has much to answer for. Yes . I would lock them away and throw away the key. Yes. The Polce are so soft on this that it is becoming a way of life, To say they do not care, Is wrong. They do, their hands are tied. They arrest them, They are back on the streets in no time at all. They become complacent and are even accused of being Racist, Sexist whatever when they try to arrest some of these scum. Drugs and alcohol are resonsible for much of the crime we have to contend with. But whilst we have the do-gooders running things, We are in trouble. All of us know of someone that is just a burden on the state. Some like ex servicemen need the help they have been denied. I myself am lucky, After coming out of the army I had support and a loving family. there was no dole money, We were means tested. But what we saved for then and the lives we are building for ourselves now is just being destroyed by the scum in society. We seem the help the same people time and time again. The same people in Courts, The same people that break into our homes and destroy our lives. It is a minority of society. But what do we do with them. I sometimes see some of the bad lads from over Kelvin, Some of them have done well, accepted help, But I see three at least that have been helped so many times that they no longer deserve help. Yet these same three, Well known characters get loads of dosh from the system, Have never done a days work in their lives, stole from their own families. These scum do not deserve help. They need a daily dose of the whip.the law,in all its strenghth is only as strong as those that uphold it, we need a complete rethink, there are we are told,notenough cells to put the convicted,perhaps,if punishments were harsher,there would be less criminals, would you risk shop liffting if you knew you would get ten years in prison?i say prison,not the friendly leftist hotels we have today, a prison where you get up at 5.30, you are at work road building or farming at 6 am, paying your way,reducing the cost of keeping you,yes hard work,12 hours a day,something unknown to most criminals, after ten years of that,i guarantee crime figures would be reduced,its only the soft liberals that have got britain into the mess it is today with criminals

So mental disabilities are less important than physical, (or visible to others) disabilities (this is the sort of inference I'm taking from you)?

you dont want to get me started on mental disability, as a carer for a recently diagnosed manic depressive i think the law giving drunks and druggies money stinks.

now that is total ******xxxxxx.
you get up you decide "i dont want a fag/drink/spliff" - dead easy.

Ridiculous. If you're addicted, even if you realise you are, it's not 'dead easy' to just stop. More to the point, it doesn't even address what I said.

otherwise pray tell why people given drug alternatives or nicorette or £75 a week for booze don't quit.

It's not £75 p/w for booze, it's £75 p/w for essentials and medicines (on IB you don't get free prescriptions, contrary to another urban myth. It is however different for Income Support). Remember that we are talking £20 p/w on top of what they would get while out of work anyway.

they only stop when they get HELP to encourage them to STOP.

Agreed. Thank you for completely contradicting your first para above.

you dont want to get me started on mental disability, as a carer for a recently diagnosed manic depressive i think the law giving drunks and druggies money stinks.

Give me an alternative.

Ridiculous. If you're addicted, even if you realise you are, it's not 'dead easy' to just stop. More to the point, it doesn't even address what I said.



It's not £75 p/w for booze, it's £75 p/w for essentials and medicines (on IB you don't get free prescriptions, contrary to another urban myth. It is however different for Income Support). Remember that we are talking £20 p/w on top of what they would get while out of work anyway.



Agreed. Thank you for completely contradicting your first para above.


paying them additional benefits as a qualified disabled person IMHO is not help.why should they get more than someone else who is unemployed just because they are INCAPABLE of working not unable to work.
giving them support,counselling etc is the way forward.this does not contradict my first comment. if they dont want to stop you can spend your life helping them & they won't.
therefore the choice is theirs. surely you cannot argue differently.

Give me an alternative.

give them vouchers for food etc, they will probably get everything else paid for anyway.
provide access to counselling - then if they give up the drug/alco get thema job. if they want to be an alco on their own money then fine,but it shouldnt be state endorsed.

paying them additional benefits as a qualified disabled person IMHO is not help.why should they get more than someone else who is unemployed just because they are INCAPABLE of working not unable to work.
giving them support,counselling etc is the way forward.this does not contradict my first comment. if they dont want to stop you can spend your life helping them & they won't.
therefore the choice is theirs. surely you cannot argue differently.

It does contradict it as you said categorically that stopping was an immediate option. Later you said differently.

The choice is theirs, indisputably, but when will you recognise that requiring alcohol/drugs counts as a small part of the qualifying process, once doctor's notes don't suffice? Being alcoholic, or an addict DOES NOT qualify you for benefit. I did point this out much earlier in the thread, but we've meandered a bit. There have to be other factors - the link I provided from the Grauniad even states that the 'primary diagnosis' is alcohol/drug addiction.

give them vouchers for food etc, they will probably get everything else paid for anyway.
provide access to counselling - then if they give up the drug/alco get thema job. if they want to be an alco on their own money then fine,but it shouldnt be state endorsed.

As you well know, that would be unworkable, and would still be costing the Govt. money, so it hardly reduces the burden on the state. All it would do would be to stigmatise and further marginalise these people.

Give me an alternative.Give them drug treatment that will make them horribly ill if they go anywhere near the booze or illegal drugs.

Give them drug treatment that will make them horribly ill if they go anywhere near the booze or illegal drugs.
there is one, it's called "antabuse"

Give them drug treatment that will make them horribly ill if they go anywhere near the booze or illegal drugs.

It's available, and if GP's think it's worth prescribing, I'm pretty sure they will.

Give them drug treatment that will make them horribly ill if they go anywhere near the booze or illegal drugs.


Ibogaine has some currency as a psychedelic that 'cures' abusers of their addiction. It takes them to rock bottom without the risk of doing so using alcohol, meth, or opiates.

And if any of those fail, I'm sure metachlorate would do the job.

It does contradict it as you said categorically that stopping was an immediate option. Later you said differently.

.


my primary point is that they choose to abuse themselves so they can stop if they want.
i only suggested "help" as an alternative to giving them cash.
making them turn up at AA ,7 days a week as compulsory therapy may be more productive than extra money to get a fix with.

the government figures & the original story was that 100,000 drug users and alcos were receivening state benefit as being disabled and unable to work due to addiction - i dont care how much a part this plays or how much Dr's can be conned by their stories of self denial.

its about time people realised the consequences of their own choices.

And if any of those fail, I'm sure metachlorate would do the job.

What exactly is metachlorate?

there is one, it's called "antabuse"

Also available as Common Inkcaps :P

Well even if some alcoholics do receive cash benefits to help with their addiction it's really not at great cost to the tax-payer. Most of the retail cost of the hard liquor these people rely on for their 'fix' is excise duty and VAT which goes straight back into Gordon Brown's kitty. ;)

my primary point is that they choose to abuse themselves so they can stop if they want.
i only suggested "help" as an alternative to giving them cash.
making them turn up at AA ,7 days a week as compulsory therapy may be more productive than extra money to get a fix with.

And when someone has their first shandy, by choice, that is the key which opens the door to their inevitable decline into alcoholism is it? By the time it has got to the point of addiction, if it ever gets to that point at all, you CAN'T 'just stop'. Being a drunk isn't the same as being dependent.

As for compulsory therapy, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

(ahem)

the government figures & the original story was that 100,000 drug users and alcos were receivening state benefit as being disabled and unable to work due to addiction - i dont care how much a part this plays or how much Dr's can be conned by their stories of self denial.

its about time people realised the consequences of their own choices.

At the end of the day, however, if someone has a set of medical conditions which prevent them from working, and it has been diagnosed and confirmed by the medical profession, then the law deems them as 'incapable of work'. Whichever way you view the law, it is the law.

I'll ignore most of your little rant - amusing though it was.

Please do educate me as to which opart of what I was saying about genetics was utter 'b******s'? I only said a couple of things - so it was eithert the fact that thinning out the runts strengthens a breed, or that allowing weak genes to reproduce weakens a species?

I'm fascinated as to how you will shoot down such simple and obvious claims.

Come on, I'm all ears :hihi:

My, we have been busy,-
That you can describe the infinite complexities of natural selection/genetics as 'simple' and 'obvious' is indicative of your total cluelessness on the subject - get a book is my advise to you and prepare for a few years bedtime reading.

And don't make the mistake that by describing my reply as an 'amusing rant' people will take your word for it and assume that it was,,
your misguided and monstrous ideas are clearly immovable - regardless of the overwhelming quantities of logic and truth that assail you. The normal constraints of civilisation, - the defining characteristics of an EVOLVED society, are nowhere to be seen in your make-up. If anyone is genetically unsuitable it is your kind - social adaptability and inter-dependance are the foundations of human evolution - it is the fundamental reason for our success it is what makes us human.

What is really sad about you is that you really believe that being an intransigent opinionated bully makes you appear tough.


Anyway, that being so, lets put you right on a couple of scientific matters.

When Darwin referred to 'the survival of the fittest' he meant 'that which is most fit' (as in most 'suited') to a particular set of environmental variables.
He wasn't saying ' most strong' physical/mental fitness was not what he was talking about.
So, if a particular environment changed over time (as it is prone to do) for instance from a treeless plain into an increasingly dense woodland. The flora and fauna of that area would either adapt or die.
This is where your 'runt' argument fails completely. For the larger less manouvreable members of say a canine strain, which had evolved into swift leggy straight line hunters would be at a disadvantage, the smaller 'runts' of the subsequent litters would have the advantage, not just of manouvreability, but that they would need less food to survive their changing habitat, and indeed, would find it easier to escape from predators and to hide from them. Consequently, the runt would go on to reproduce his 'runt' gene, while his bigger bro' would not, and his genes would die out.
(Just for the record I'm six feet tall and 13 stone.)
All of this 'evolution' takes millions of years.

Also you assume that a druggy is GENETICALLY INFERIOR. A genome takes years to evolve and can't have any effect over just a few generations.
And there is no such thing as a 'weak' gene as defined by you.

Many people spanning all social groups use drugs, as you yourself do, relatively few become dependant upon them. Some of these people are stupid - some are not - some are geniuses.

If you are a member of the armed forces you should be ashamed of your flip attitude towards your colleagues who have suffered mental trauma and are institutionalised. Many of my family have been in the forces, my father and grandfather were on active duty, they would be disgusted by you.

I wonder how umusing you would find it if it was you who had P.T.S.D. OR HAD YOUR FACE BLOWN OFF. I wonder if your 'humour will get you through' attitude wuold work then, I very much doubt it. YOU'D BE SCREAMING LIKE A RUNT PIGLET!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you really do 'protesteth too much' about these runty inferior people who should be killed off - I mean we can be anything here in cyber space can't we? I bet you're more Norman Wisdom than Norman Schwartzkopf.

Wouldn't it be funny if you were a six stone, five foot four smack head?
Or a big mouthed intellectually inferior, consummate coward like Adolph Hitler?
=================================================
=====================================
"Do you still remember - Decembers' foggy freeze, - when the icicles clung to his chest in freezing agony?
He snatched his rattling last breath, with deep sea diver sounds - whilst flowers bloomed like madness in the spring."

A ballad to a wino. From Aqualung by Jethro Tull.