should disabled students be means tested ?

[GoNz0]

You're calling someone a 'toss pot' purely because they have a disability and their parents are rich?

no i call him a toss pot because he bragged about what he had then pointed out he was being given something he didn't need but took it because it was on offer, to me thats a toss pot and i am being polite.

A persons right to go to university or college should not be based on whether they are disabled but on whether they have the potential to succeed in any given area. just like in a place of employment people should have the right to access all they need to be able to have a chance to do so.

Just because a person happens to live in a household where the parents may or may not be wealthy it is the individual that has the right not the parent.

Disability is not a means tested thing you are either disabled or not why should a young person who happens to have a disability be means tested to see if they are entitled, like any other young person they will be entitled to their further education based on grants if they qualify or student loans.

I am proud to live in a country where the young people get a chance to further themselves.

Frequently people with disabilities find things more expensive just because it has a disabled friendly label something that often goes unnoticed by the able bodied members of society, should they have further expense to get a good education or the chance to go into the work place I think not.

so lets say you pay 3k tax a year but could be given an offer of only paying 2k tax a year if they clamped down on this sort of thing your opinion wouldn't change ?

[jackobyte]

Originally Posted by Blaidd59
Just because a person happens to live in a household where the parents may or may not be wealthy it is the individual that has the right not the parent.

I agree its is as per individual,But take a comparison if the individual has wealthy parents and live at home etc
they will have the advantage of accessing financial help compared to a individual from a less financial secure situation who may not be able to afford any extra equipment.
Agree with GoNzo if someone gets something they don't need,which could have gone to someone who really needs it and because mummy and daddy has bought them everything and then they flaunt it in front of you
Tosspot is polite !!

[billythewiz]

A very interesting OP. Many interesting points.

Personally I don't like means testing. It mostly hurts the wrong people, namely those just past the point where they lose the benefit. The very rich don't notice the loss. I'd rather give to all that deserve but also tax all those that can afford to pay.

Another issue is value for money. If dyslexic children really need/deserve a laptop, then all dyslexic children should get one. Having said that, it's not clear to me that dyslexics need a laptop any more than any other student. Also, be aware that if dyslexics do get laptops then someone else is losing out on something else.

I'm the father of a disabled child (autism rather than dyslexia). He's 8, doesn't talk and is still in nappies. We get given 4 nappies a day by the health authority. He uses 8 - 10. Who is more deserving, autistics in need of nappies or dyslexics in need of laptops ? It's not an easy choice. What frustrates me is some of the anecdotal stories I've heard. Fort example the (rich) family whose autistic child is in care (lives in a home), who get "upper rate mobility allowance" because their kid has no danger awareness (runs into traffic, stuff like that). They visit and take out their kid a few times a year, but due to the mobility allowance, they get a £35,000 Volvo XC90 for £5k (replaced every 3 years). Save just one instance of that and you can give out 30 laptops and a truck load of nappies to incontinent children, every year !

Finally, an issue that really annoys me. I meet lots sanctimonious, "snobby pratts", who complain bitterly about "benefit scroungers". They bemoan the tax that they themselves have to pay and yet are happy to claim child benefit, child/working tax credits, tax relief of pension contributions, tax sheltering in ISAs and live in a house that they could only initially afford because of the MIRAS tax relief that they used to get.
IMO, anything that involves you routinely avoiding tax, is in no way any different from anything that involves you routinely taking money from the state (i.e. benefits).
I see tax as a patriotic, honour. It is my chance to help fund the NHS, pay for better schools, higher pensions for pensioners, better living accommodation for soldiers returning from Afghanistan and generally make Britain Greater. It always amazes me how the boat owning, porsche owning tax avoiders along with all the "benefit" scroungers do everything they can to be takers and avoid contributing.

There is a name for people that have no interest in contributing to our country. They're called foreigners !

[Agent]

There is a name for people that have no interest in contributing to our country. They're called foreigners !

Yet without foreigners the NHS would be in turmoil. If they all left tomorrow, we would be in serious trouble.

[scaryjim]

Not to mention the fact that the majority of "foreigners" who come over actually pay taxes and contribute to the country, whereas a lot of "natives" sit on their arses all day drinking white lightning bought with their dole money.

It's easy to make a point when you don't need to back it up with actual evidence, isn't it

[GoNz0]

Not to mention the fact that the majority of "foreigners" who come over actually pay taxes and contribute to the country, whereas a lot of "natives" sit on their arses all day drinking white lightning bought with their dole money.

It's easy to make a point when you don't need to back it up with actual evidence, isn't it

how do you feel about the russian girl i went to take a kit to so she could bugger off for 2 years in china.

that one really left me open mouthed.

[scaryjim]

Dunno, how pretty was she

If she was entitled to the kit under the rules of the scheme, then fair enough. I don't feel any particular way about her. I've already pointed out that I think a lot of these schemes need changing or scrapping in favour of something a bit more integrated and carefully thought through. Without knowing the full details of her claim/eligibility - which I never will - I can't really make any kind of judgement on her case.

I've always advocated that people claim exactly what they are eligible for - no more, and definitely no less - from the government. It's rare enough that they offer to give you stuff rather than take it off you: if you get the chance to do it legitimately grab your share

[billythewiz]

Not to mention the fact that the majority of "foreigners" who come over actually pay taxes and contribute to the country

Don't get me wrong, the vast, vast, vast majority of foreigners never comer here, couldn't give two hoots for this country and why should they ? I've nothing against them. I've also nothing against the foreigners who do come here and contribute. My beef is against the exploiters who think this country owes them. And that group contains just as many boat owners and porsche drivers as "white lightning drinking, dole scroungers".

whereas a lot of "natives" sit on their arses all day drinking white lightning bought with their dole money.

It's easy to make a point when you don't need to back it up with actual evidence, isn't it

Right back at you, bud.

[GoNz0]

Dunno, how pretty was she

If she was entitled to the kit under the rules of the scheme, then fair enough. I don't feel any particular way about her. I've already pointed out that I think a lot of these schemes need changing or scrapping in favour of something a bit more integrated and carefully thought through. Without knowing the full details of her claim/eligibility - which I never will - I can't really make any kind of judgement on her case.

I've always advocated that people claim exactly what they are eligible for - no more, and definitely no less - from the government. It's rare enough that they offer to give you stuff rather than take it off you: if you get the chance to do it legitimately grab your share

it really got me that someone can come study here, get a council house for her other half and 2 kids then take some free disability kit and piss off to another country with it...

systems more fubar that we imagined m8.

[watercooled]

I'm off to get some sleep in a sec so I've only skim-read the thread for now.

But in regards to the OP I agree it's incredibly annoying. Sure, the system isn't perfect but it's still the people who take the mickey bliss. I have a few dyslexic friends and none of them are incapable of refusing something they simply don't need, especially considering they might be taking it from someone who does really need it and wouldn't be able to afford it themselves.

[jim]

it really got me that someone can come study here, get a council house for her other half and 2 kids then take some free disability kit and piss off to another country with it...

That's a long way from what we're discussing in the OP though, tbf.

[Lucio]

To start with, it's worth taking a little time to read this article, to remind yourself that sometimes you can't take the effects of a disability at face value.

Another similar point to the above is that is anyone really fit to judge the shape of another person's life in a few minutes of contact?

Anyhow, the above point aside we can always find examples where the system is broken, it's a natural part of amy set of rules is that some people will find the necessary loopholes in them and exploit them. The question becomes whether you can actually close the loopholes without screwing over the people who genuinely need help.

[g8ina]

Good link Lucio, for Lupus you can substitute so many other illnesses, my fibromyalgia for example....

I would also concur that it's the system that is at fault, not the users. Please don't blame the dyslexic kid

[GoNz0]

Good link Lucio, for Lupus you can substitute so many other illnesses, my fibromyalgia for example....

I would also concur that it's the system that is at fault, not the users. Please don't blame the dyslexic kid

apart from acting like a toss pot i don't blame the kid, its obvious its his parents at fault here.

he knows no better than to be a bit of a toss pot as he has been bought up that way.

[Behemoth]

I'm dyslexic, but I don't consider it a disability and neither would I use it to bag some free kit that just because I could have it for the sake of having it because it was free.

Some people really know how to cheat the system and in my book that makes them just as bad as the people with full time job and claiming job seekers allowance.

[GoNz0]

I'm dyslexic, but I don't consider it a disability and neither would I use it to bag some free kit that just because I could have it for the sake of having it because it was free.

Some people really know how to cheat the system and in my book that makes them just as bad as the people with full time job and claiming job seekers allowance.

i would say 90% of those i go to setup have not shown enough of a problem until they for no real reason get bad marks during the 1st year of uni, then they are assesed and iansyst step in.

most don't understand why they need this stuff and i have to explain they have spent school life adapting but now some of the gear is needed to help.