Why isn't Hopkins having a go at the PM as he apparently claimed Disability Benefits.

3 of 4

busby2000

28-01-2015

Originally Posted by Skyrah:
“This isn't a fair society.

My son who is physically and mentally handicapped from birth had all the care, respite & schooling he needed for FREE .... Then as soon as my son reached the age of 18 all his free treatments, respite, prescriptions was taken away from him.

So unless you're under the age of 18 or over the age of 70 you are thrown on the society's scrap heap.”

We found the thing we and my son missed most was the respite, he went from a children's group up to the age of 18 to an adult respite home where the ages range from 18 to 80. Not much fun for an 18 year old with learning disability (around 7/8 year old) to be stuck in a respite home with old people, luckily he still gets his prescriptions free as he takes epilepsy medication and that is seen as life threatening

busby2000

28-01-2015

Originally Posted by puppetangel:
“Imagine you are an adult but with the mental age of 2, you want to go to the park and play on the swing and slide like you have always done. Even that becomes difficult when you are now in your 20s or 30s and people stare and there are age restrictions on the playground.

In the news there was an article about a young man who was denied access to legoland in manchester, even though he had the mental age of 3 - but they wouldn't let him and his carer in - as all adults need a young child to access the venue. That young man loved lego, his sister had bought him an annual pass and he went every week until they stopped him.”

Omg poor lad, my son loves legoland, he is now 21 thankfully we have a younger child so we still get access, but this is yet again another sad story of what happens to people with learning disability and autism, they are becoming the forgotten ones, we attend a club for people with learning disabilities the ages are from 18 upwards, the first time I took him I was mortified to see so many adults with learning disabilities, I was used to seeing the 100 or so children at his SEN school but didn't ever consider where they all went after school age, now I appreciate the very special people that set up these clubs for adults with autism and learning disabilies

Javed

28-01-2015

Originally Posted by Scamps8:
“The Op was referring to The PMs late son, not KP's son and therefore pretty disrespectful theme given his son is dead.”

I see the point, but I don't agree that it is disrespectful. If a politicians actions as a civilian are a stark contradiction to his policies when in power, then that is a valid subject for discussion, especially by voters in an election year.

Javed

28-01-2015

Originally Posted by SULLA:
“Price should not be claiming. Cameron should not have claimed either.”

Well I agree that Cameron should not have claimed DLA for his son. But do we know for sure that KP claims DLA for Harvey? So far, we have only heard her mention Harvey's transport to and from School. This is nothing to do with DLA.

And no-one applies for it. Special Needs kids who have a Statement of Educational Needs are assessed by and Educational Psychologist and other professionals who recommend what is put into the Statement, along with the Parents. The Council then has to provide that, it is legally binding.

Javed

28-01-2015

Originally Posted by Ms Ann Thrope:
“That's terrible. PiP hasn't got around to us yet, but I fully expect to be in the same situation when they do.

They have got away with it by making the public believe that all benefit claimants are lying scroungers. People like Hopkins only make the situation worse for people with genuine disabilities who are being denied the care they genuinely need.

This article from the Guardian shows the true figures. Less than 1% of claims are fraudulent. About the same amount are paid out in error without fraudulent intent.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...iversal-credit

The fact of the matter is that this money which is lost is actually less than the money which could genuinely be claimed by people who are entitled to it, but who don't claim, for whatever reason.

It seems on the face of it to be a deliberate attempt to deflect attention away from the greedy robbers at the top who can get away with it, onto the poor and helpless at the bottom who can be kicked in the teeth with impunity.”

Excellent post !

Javed

28-01-2015

Originally Posted by Penfolds_place:
“It costs a lot money to means test, you need to pay people to implement it. Wouldn't you rather the money goes to a disabled kid who needs it rather than on middle men?”

And yet they have managed to bring in means testing for Child Benefit

Javed

28-01-2015

Originally Posted by iamsofired:
“As others have said the kid is dead so that would be disrespectful - Katie Hopkins is a far right pundit so dont expect her to have a go at Cameron, there are 10 times as many left wing pundits/comedians/journalists/taxpayer funded DS'ers to do that. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go round trust me...

Also Katie Price suggested it could cost up to £1000 a day to pay for everything - I have no idea what Cameron claimed for but I dont see how it would be in that ballpark.
Katie Prices estimated wealth is 40 million so im not overly sympathetic to be honest.”

bit in bold: if I recall Cameron himself brought up little Ivan every time he talked about the NHS and still does after his death. So Cameron is not at all above using his (now late) son for political gain.

iain_stevenson1

28-01-2015

I don't agree with all the cuts to disabled peoples benefits but I do think that if you're rich you should not be claiming it

Javed

28-01-2015

Originally Posted by jeanoj:
“Apparently being the operative word. Didn't the poor child die - no need to bring it up on here.”

Why not? Are our politicians actions no longer a suitable subject for discussion, when the politician himself makes political capital imo of his son's illness?

Javed

28-01-2015

Originally Posted by iain_stevenson1:
“I don't agree with all the cuts to disabled peoples benefits but I do think that if you're rich you should not be claiming it”

Yes I agree - it reminds me that Gordon Brown never drew his full salary. I wouldn't say that everything should be means tested because people do pay tax after all. ButI do think more highly if richer people who decline to take up every single penny.

puppetangel

28-01-2015

Originally Posted by busby2000:
“Omg poor lad, my son loves legoland, he is now 21 thankfully we have a younger child so we still get access, but this is yet again another sad story of what happens to people with learning disability and autism, they are becoming the forgotten ones, we attend a club for people with learning disabilities the ages are from 18 upwards, the first time I took him I was mortified to see so many adults with learning disabilities, I was used to seeing the 100 or so children at his SEN school but didn't ever consider where they all went after school age, now I appreciate the very special people that set up these clubs for adults with autism and learning disabilies”

They've set up a petition on change.org, its interesting reading peoples comments who've signed it. https://www.change.org/p/legoland-di...text%3Ano_dm_l

SULLA

29-01-2015

Originally Posted by puppetangel:
“Well then anyone who gets pregnant and has no means of supporting themselves should not claim either.

Why get pregnant a 2nd, 3rd, 4th time when you are relying on state benefits for the first child?

Why fund school leavers who get pregnant for the reason of getting a council house or rehousing familes and in bigger council houses as they continue to expand.”

Is his what you think?

Originally Posted by oathy:
“Hi
its actually not a process of Claiming it all goes through the local education authority
I posted in another thread this was mums job for a long time.
it basically comes out of the same Dept that provides the school buses. Hopkins just saw this as another ploy to show her "dismantle everything taxpayer funded". She really does need to emigrate to Monaco”

I care not where the money comes from. Very rich people should not be claiming at all.

JVB69

29-01-2015

Originally Posted by oathy:
“didn't you know?
that's why he made it a personal mission to change DLA into PiP. He found the form filling horrendous and thought it much easier to make sure everyone got humiliated as much as possible. And yes they did claim everything its only because Katie Hopkins personal mission is to make sure anything tax payers fund is abolished this became an issue.

the daily star headline took the Guess KP did.

the taxi service comes in at around 150 pounds a week (65 of that is for the escort)
the carer at the school is on Minimum wage Holidays etc are not paid for obvious reasons.
Its all BS making a scandal out of nothing”

Didn't Pricey say it was 1k a week and that she pays her taxes so why shouldn't she claim it. I mean she is only worth in the region of 45m ......I would imagine when Camerons son was alive he was not worth that.

Sammmymack

29-01-2015

Originally Posted by SULLA:
“Price should not be claiming. Cameron should not have claimed either.”

She contributes through her taxes. She saves the state a huge amount of money by caring for her son at home rather than giving up and placing him in residential care. The pm's family also cared for their very disabled son at home. Respect to both of these families. Don't resent their wealth.
Carers save the state masses of money. High earning tax payers give the state masses of money. Katie is both.

Scots rool

29-01-2015

And the only reason why Harvey needs transportation & a carer to take him to school is because the council had closed down many of the special needs schools in the area he could have attended. They have to in that case provide transport/medical care to whichever school can cater for his needs, in most cases the school could be many miles away from his home.

Blondie X

29-01-2015

Originally Posted by Cornish Girl:
“I got the impression that Katie H was unaware that you could claim money for taxi fares for disabled children. I am sure when she comes out, she will be very vocal about multi millionaires claiming benefits designed to help people who cannot afford a chauffeur for their disabled children.”

KP doesn't claim money for taxi fares. He son is provided with transport to the nearest suitable school for his special needs which the local authority is legally provided to do as Harvey has a statement of SEN. The way people are talking, you'd think KP gets handed a wad of cash each week and chooses for Harvey to be taken by taxi which isn't the case at all

Javed

29-01-2015

Originally Posted by SULLA:
“Is his what you think?

I care not where the money comes from. Very rich people should not be claiming at all.”

ButKatie P did not claim, that's the point. There was no claiming anywhere because it was part of the SEn Process. When they closed the local School down the LEA undertook to provide the transport and care for Harvey to attend the nearest suitable school.

In the case of Cameron, he did claim for Harvey's DLA. I don't begrudge him that money but then I think it is despicable of him to make the lives of disabled people so much harder, when he has gotten into power and no longer has a disabled son to look after.

Javed

29-01-2015

Originally Posted by JVB69:
“Didn't Pricey say it was 1k a week and that she pays her taxes so why shouldn't she claim it. I mean she is only worth in the region of 45m ......I would imagine when Camerons son was alive he was not worth that.”

Well by that logic, neither is Harvey. Cameron's wife is a multi millionaire herself. If you are going to compare wealth, you should compare the parents' wealth because clearly neither child has or had any wealth in their own right.

Javed

29-01-2015

She said itv would be that much to her. It won't cost the LEA that much.

Tissy

29-01-2015

Originally Posted by Angie_Plasty:
“Cameron is not economically or socially vulnerable. Why would Hopkins attack him on this front?”

Exactly! KatieH might be ignorant but she's not stupid and selects her targets carefully.

Rough Diamond

29-01-2015

Originally Posted by Javed:
“bit in bold: if I recall Cameron himself brought up little Ivan every time he talked about the NHS and still does after his death. So Cameron is not at all above using his (now late) son for political gain.”

He does use his son still for political gain and I find that offensive,he labels claimants as scroungers, cameron and his mob are the biggest scroungers claiming bogus expenses,Katie H has probably made it worse for claimants now it has grabbed the media attention

Rough Diamond

29-01-2015

Originally Posted by Javed:
“ButKatie P did not claim, that's the point. There was no claiming anywhere because it was part of the SEn Process. When they closed the local School down the LEA undertook to provide the transport and care for Harvey to attend the nearest suitable school.

In the case of Cameron, he did claim for Harvey's DLA. I don't begrudge him that money but then I think it is despicable of him to make the lives of disabled people so much harder, when he has gotten into power and no longer has a disabled son to look after.”

I do too,you would think he would have more compassion but he obviously has none.

seellee

29-01-2015

Is David Cameron in the big brother house? Have I missed something?

shmisk

29-01-2015

if my son didn't have transport to and from his SEN school I wouldn't be able to work, and therefore claim benefits.

puppetangel

29-01-2015

I have found all the uproar over KP's disabled son strange when things like this go on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ncil-home.html

It's a human right to have a child and the government should assist the first child, but I dont think the government should go on to fund children no.2 onwards. If you can't afford to have another child thats it. If your house is only 2 bedrooms and you get assistance towards it and can't afford a 3 or 4 bedroom, why have more kids and force the state to upgrade you to fit you all in etc

At the same time if you are a multi-millionaire and earning a million a year then I get why somethings you should cover yourself.

3 of 4