I have been reading a selection of comments from various contributors to this forum site and others and some of the stories are really gut and heart wrenching.

Some commentators are even contemplating suicide because of the stress and feeling of hopelessness they are going through.
The very people and charitable organisations who are there, as they say to help us, are the very ones who are stabbing us in the back by taking the 'Queens shilling' so to speak, by being in hock to the Government through the 'Cabinet Office of the Third Sector'. Also becoming advisors to, and serving on Government committees and organisations forcing sick and disabled people into work.

Surely what is happening to these sick and disabled people is morally and legally wrong.

I mean, Hitler was doing the same thing in Germany in the 1930s.

I am a member of the Christian faith but I am disgusted the Church, of all denominations, isn't speaking out against it. Their founder preached and taught about compassion for the weak in society. Our laws and morality in this country are based on that.

At the moment we are all individuals fighting the benefit system individually.

Surely it is not beyond comprehension for all sick and disabled people to fight these injustices collectively and force those who are supposed to be helping us, to fight our corner and not pander to this despicable and heartless Government.

Bombard them with our gut and heart wrenching stories fill them with guilt instead of full bank accounts with Government money. Sorry our money which they are getting twice through donations and money from the tax Payer.

Force them to collectively fight and If necessary take legal action on our behalf against this despicable and heartless Government who are forcing sick and disabled people to live their lives in total despair and feelings of hopelessness.

Yes you have twigged it.Smug Remote Highly paid apparacheks in Whitehall on the cushy leather seats arent really that excercised
about the poor whoever they may be.Some Politicians I have heard make noises that sounded half way genuine have been Vince Cable and the former Leader of The Lib Dems whoever they were.However when on Any Questions he tried to raise the problem of grotty housing he was quickly silenced and a few months later ceased to be leader.
Im not sure the common comparison to Hitler is quite accurate though it is often alluded to.
Basically the problem on this island is too many people trying to eek a living from too unresourceful a land.Add to that a climate that is imicable to housing and a Victorian Landed Gentry Class still in situ long after such things dissappeared in other Euro countries and you dont have a very cheerful outlook for the common man I will admit.
It is slowly transpiring that the last 25 years or so were bouyed up not be eco success but by borrowing and debt and that economically speaking The UK is really somewhere between 1953 and 1981.
Sadly the "Im all right jack /keeping up appearences " Middle Classes" didnt care as they are now coming up to dying age and they have been fed the while.All attempts to communicate with them to avert disaster have been met with rebuff.
Now its too late.
As you say once School Leaver Julie discovers that there are no shelf stacking vacancies at the local Tescos
things become fraught,indeed in some locales there IS no Tescos.
All sorts of folks who once didnt give a thought to their economic future or social position in this land from Oxbridge Graduates to Polish Handymen but took it for granted,from Quango chair warmers to Bank Clerks are suddenly being confronted with being forced to adopt the lifestyle of a cross between a Punk Rocker and a Penniless Vagrant.
You can see it on the faces of people as they scurry past!
However the lesson we must learn from The Germany you allude to is that even if The UK rich and poor united all that would happen would be the mass release of aggression & suppression both internal(The State)and External(Overseas).
It would not mean more resources and no one would be safe.

Jim
With great respect I think you have totally missed what I was getting at.

My alluding to Hitler and his Germany, it was to their attitude towards the most vulnerable and weak in society, such as the case of the sick and disabled in the UK today, blaming them for the faults which are of the Governments own making.

I wasn't referring to, as you put it 'Government Apparatchiks'. Though they are far from being innocent. I was referring to Charitable Organisations who are "representing" us, the sick and disabled on Government Committees and taking taxpayers money from the Government to run those Charities.
The saying 'He who pays the piper calls the tune' comes to mind.

Again I wasn't referring to mass anarchy but to the possibility that if we, the sick and disabled bombarded these so called 'charitable organisations’, who let's be honest are supposed to be helping and supporting us, with the gut and heart wrenching stories I read on forum sites, then, it may embarrass them into fighting our corner and bring out into the open the despair that is going on with these Government reforms of the benefits System.

Does someone have to die before we are taken notice of. Because believe me it is only a matter of time before that happens.

Saddly l agree withyou you Sunnybank.
When Hitler came to power he told the people what he would do, so he had very little to hide, when a goverment sets out polices and dress them up to sell to us.However we need to look under the polices, to find the hidden agenda, Why is this done l belive to make it harder to blame,( bring to mind, set up to fail)Policains care only to win, so yes we need to humilate them after all it is a fight for survival when good people do nothing evil will grow

I can't see embarrassment affecting the charities - look how much some of the managers of these charities are paid, money that has been raised to "help the cause" is being spent on (some) staff. People at the bottom are expected to work for less than the going rate, or for free - but this does not apply to those making the decisions.

The only way (IMO) that charities can be persuaded to change is when their policies affect their income - in other words, they would have to be losing more in donations than they get from the government.

That would take an awful lot of publicity, especially when there is constant publicity showing how people are defrauding the system (one case can make headline news in the local paper for a few days!).


I can't see us being able to fight the perception - I am sure we have all been told that it is ok for able people to use our spaces as "most people shouldn't have their badges". I have even been told (when sitting in my car eating a packet of crisps and drinking a coke after a tough day without food) that if I bothered to eat healthy food I would not need to claim benefits and take up spaces needed by the elderly.

Charities vary wildly. It makes sense to me to support the charities we feel are doing the most for us.

I don't think that providing public services of itself means that a charity can't speak out. I am a trustee/director of a charity that provides services to a local community and gets European, Government and Local Authority funding. We're a pain in the backside to anyone that doesn't listen to the needs of our clients and our community. We're making a real difference in our chosen context.

I also think that insofar as some charities are service providers rather than solely campaigning organisations, they have a right to have a say as such.

On the other hand, there are some gaps in the field of pure campaigning organisations. It's not surprising, though, because people don't dig in their pockets for this sort of organisation.

Where to position itself is a sticky choice for any charity. A group that looks after the interests of its members may want to provide services to them. They may not be able to get enough funding from the members to do so, especially if those members are on a low income, so they will seek funding elsewhere for it. You could say, stop providing the services and remain independent, but then would anyone join?

That's the bottom line. How many people will actually join an organisation that is a pure campaigning organisation?

As for charities using volunteers, that's also a money question. When you join a charity are you prepared to pay the necessary money for the people involved to all be paid? I don't think that most people are. There's also the point that lots of us out there like volunteering. We get together to volunteer and sometimes what we do as a group becomes something big, sometimes it stays small. People don't have to volunteer, and people don't have to subscribe to organisations that use volunteers. The choice is yours. But people that work in a field, be it paid or voluntary, have views on what is needed for their client base. That's no different from doctors having a view or home helps. People see problems and they speak out about them.

So I think that there is a role for a wide variety of charities with a wide variety of funding and I think that they all have a need to be heard. If you don't think there's a charity that speaks out for the views of a group to which you belong, then start one. It's not technically difficult and you can find model memorandum and articles of association on the Charity Commission website; but if you think that it shouldn't get public funding and if you think that it shouldn't use volunteers, you're going to need a sponsor or some rich members.