FabSwingers.com forum: IT'S BLUE!!!! Pt.VII

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

The other thread got way too big cos of all the quoting of long passages of text, so if you want to quote a part of someone's post please take out anything that isn't relevant. I know we've all got lots to say and it's a great debate but there's no real need for quote and requote of the same long paragraphs. Thanks.

~~~~~~~

"From Pt.VI - Rugby said:

Lots of people have to travel for work......if they don't want to do the job, they could look for another.

True, many do, I am one of them, and if I had to pay for my own hotel & food it wouldn't be worthwhile me working. Plus, my company are making a lot of money for the work that I do and if I am required to work away for weeks on end, staying in room of a hotel and away from my family then they should pay a premium for that.

Politician's are no different and I don't subscribe to the idea that they should stay in the cheapest accomodation available. If they are meeting with their foreign counterparts I don't think it comes across very well as being the poor relation. In sensitive negotiations one needs to be alert and on the ball and a perception that the 'Brit is a cheapy' doesn't put our people on a sound footing to begin with.

"From Pt.VI - Rugby said:

It doesn't really answer the question though? If they are getting Mobility allowance for helping their child be mobile, then why the need for a council to pay someone to take them to school? Isn't that a double whammy?

Don't get me wrong, anyone who is disabled should in my opinion claiming for every thing they are entitled too, but this is getting something twice.

If an adult and a child in the same household are both registered as disabled then surely they are both entitled to help from the state. One is an adult and thus can drive, the other a child and cannot. Benefits must reflect that I would think, the adult entitled to a mobility car and the child for contract hire. The govt has met it's obligation to both citizens and is happy for them to organise their own lives as best suits them. That makes sense to me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uss PussWoman
over a year ago

east cheshire

Fooking hell Wishy thought you were gonna be a Dad again then....Clear Blue

LOL

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Fooking hell Wishy thought you were gonna be a Dad again then....Clear Blue

LOL"

Sssshh! Siren will hear you... she's been clucky since our lad was born last year!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uss PussWoman
over a year ago

east cheshire

"Fooking hell Wishy thought you were gonna be a Dad again then....Clear Blue

LOL

Sssshh! Siren will hear you... she's been clucky since our lad was born last year!!!

Awwwwww

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atureFem4FunWoman
over a year ago

Petts Wood

The point wasn't about the Mobility component award for the child so much as the fact that the state is paying a rate of £70 plus Vat a day to have the child driven Six miles to school and back again.

The government pays the mother an award of approx £49 a week as the mobility component of DLA, the child has no problem with mobility Wishy...the child has learning problems and mild Autism.

The Government also pays the road tax for the vehicle for the child along with a Blue Badge.

The mother drives past the disabled childs school every day when she drop her other child off at school....it's a ridiculous waste of resources....and this is coming from someone who would defend the welfare state to the death....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Hold on a sec Jane, we have two threads running the same theme. Can you repost on 'suggestion for cuts', x

Admin, Please close this one. Ta.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread