Disabled children

[BlackVanDyke]

elster said:

BlackVanDyke said:

Political incorrectness is a lack of manners. This is advocating murder.

Bit of a difference, there.

Not really it is your interpretation, also cherry picking a single comment from a conversation is hard to tell the context.

At no point does he say he literally wanted to do it.

He didn't say he wanted to do it, he said it should be done.

[elster]

BlackVanDyke said:

elster said:

BlackVanDyke said:

Political incorrectness is a lack of manners. This is advocating murder.

Bit of a difference, there.

Not really it is your interpretation, also cherry picking a single comment from a conversation is hard to tell the context.

At no point does he say he literally wanted to do it.

He didn't say he wanted to do it, he said it should be done.

what did the rest of the sentence say? What did the question before say?

You are taking a part of a sentence and basing a story on it.

Back in the real world, if someone said that would you think

A - They want to kill all disabled children
B - A big part of the budget is going on disabled kids.

If there really are people on this forum who genuinely believe he wants to kill them all or they should be killed, literally to death, rather than just jumping up and down because he has offended you. Then you need to talk with people more often.

[mattnunn]

elster said:

BlackVanDyke said:

Political incorrectness is a lack of manners. This is advocating murder.

Bit of a difference, there.

Not really it is your interpretation, also cherry picking a single comment from a conversation is hard to tell the context.

At no point does he say he literally wanted to do it.

Oh, just playing devils advocate was he. And that is somehow less of an insult to disabled people. Reeks of David Brent to me, what an absolute bell end.

It's the worst kind of ahole who says to people "I don't think you should be killed, I'm just saying it would save a lot of money if you were." Prize pen1s.

In Pol Pot Cambodia they used to have giant poster all around the place saying "To destroy you is no loss, to preserve you is no gain."

To even consider what this man suggested makes you an absolute . This isn't a question of free speech is a question of people in elected office being tts.

[The Don of Croy]

My reading is he made an inflammatory remark based on the cost of such care.

In coming years we are probably going to hear a lot more about these costs, and we will all have to decide just what is affordable. Doesn't make it nice, or good, or give you much of a touchy-feely pleasant experience, but what do we do when we cannot afford such care?

(As an aside, my wife had a paraplegic sister, in the days before state support - no special school, no carers, some limited respite care (during one such she actually died!) and living in an isolated village with no adapted public transport. Costs were not an issue because nobody outside the immediate family contributed over and above costs of NHS wheelchair)

[mattnunn]

elster said:

If there really are people on this forum who genuinely believe he wants to kill them all or they should be killed, literally to death, rather than just jumping up and down because he has offended you.

BBC Article said:

Mr Brewer said he had hoped his comment that "disabled children cost the council too much money and should be put down", would provoke a response

Well it did provoke a response and the response appears to be "Mr Brewer, get to fk"

[Saddle bum]

He is a tit!

[grumbledoak]

Maybe he is just a particularly committed socialist?

[Oakey]

Centurion07 said:

Funnily enough I was thinking about this today, well, not exactly, but about the subject of how much public money is spent on certain things. I'll explain...

I'm a taxi driver and I work for a firm that has a few school runs, as do most other firms. Yesterday I did a run for the first time, that involved picking up a council-employed escort, then one child, and taking them home from school.

The total distance for this run from picking up the escort, picking the kid up, dropping him off and then dropping the escort off was around 80-ish miles for which I, as the driver, was paid £55 by the council via my firm. Add on the escort's wages plus any "commission" my firm take and this one child costs the county council nigh on £150 A DAY just to get to and from school.

This particular run is by no means a special case either. As I don't have my own run I tend to end up covering other runs when drivers are sick/cars are being fixed etc so I see quite a few of these. I covered a run a couple of weeks ago that was £50 each way for one child and I have heard of others that are even more money.

I don't have any solution to it but you have to admit that £150 every day for one child is ludicrous isn't it? Or is it just me?

Whatever happened to the 'special' bus (our local one was a drab olive green, not very special!)? Does it still exist?

[XCP]

Interesting that the independent councillors have a group, with a leader.

[Centurion07]

Oakey said:

Whatever happened to the 'special' bus (our local one was a drab olive green, not very special!)? Does it still exist?

They still do them. Exactly the same as the runs I do just with a few more kids onboard.

I've only been driving a cab for about 4/5 years so I don't know if there are suddenly more individual kids requiring cars to get to school or if it's always been this way.

Either way I dread to think of the annual bill for all this personal transport.

Slightly off-topic but what would you say if I'd been sent on a run costing £27 four times in the space of a couple months only to find the parents had already picked their kid up or she hadn't even been to school as she's off sick each time? The parents just can't be arsed to tell us, so I get sent, and I get paid whether or not I pick her up. If I get sent, I get paid. No comeback on the parents either. Ridiculous.

[Art0ir]

mattnunn said:

Big Fluffy One said:

mattnunn said:

Hi UKIP membership application has been fast tracked apparently...

Any chance you might ellucidate?

A few weeks ago we had a story of a UKIP councillor who had a leaflet campainge highlighting his manifesto pledge of forcing abortions on women carrying less than perfect babies.

And was swiftly removed from the party. Don't let that get in the way of a cheap shot though.

[Bill]

Centurion07 said:

Either way I dread to think of the annual bill for all this personal transport.

It's probably less than putting the necessary resources into a non-specialist school.

[anonymous-user]

Hardly a cheap shot, as UKIP does attract what seems like more than its share of candidates who have the habit of saying rather unfortunate things. Farage is at least refreshingly frank when he derides them as loons and shows them the exit.

[singlecoil]

Bill said:

Centurion07 said:

Either way I dread to think of the annual bill for all this personal transport.

It's probably less than putting the necessary resources into a non-specialist school.

I daresay. I'm au fait with this sort of thing because I have a close relative at a special school who must have cost the council hundreds of thousands of pounds by now.

[ClaphamGT3]

He is perfectly entitled to express his opinion.

People who have heard or read his opinion are perfectly entitled to condemn him as an ignorant bigot.

His electorate are perfectly entitled to vote him out of office at the next opportunity - and I sincerely hope that they do.

[greygoose]

Moving off at a tangent there probably should be a grown up debate on whether it is reasonable, or even humane, to keep elderly dementia sufferers alive for years on end in homes when their quality of life has been reduced to virtually nothing. Euthanasia isn't a topic I can see many politicians wanting to discuss though.

[BlackVanDyke]

Verboten said:

Rightly or wrongly modern society dictates that care is provided from birth to death pretty much regardless of cost. As controversial as it may sound I believe nature should decide who lives and who dies and who breeds and who doesn't. The survival of the species should be survival of the fittest, not medically intervened. Nature works, human intervention doesn't.

Are you sure about that?

Firstly - it is the work - over millennia - of our species that enables people who need the support of others to survive, to do so. It's no more unnatural than is anything that humans do.

Secondly - what do you define as 'working'? Is my contribution to the world zero because I need additional support or resources that others don't to survive? If not me, how about Prof. Hawking? Would the world be better off if he'd been left to suffocate 30 years ago? Or Roosevelt? Beethoven?

[Bill]

Verboten said:

Rightly or wrongly modern society dictates that care is provided from birth to death pretty much regardless of cost. As controversial as it may sound I believe nature should decide who lives and who dies and who breeds and who doesn't. The survival of the species should be survival of the fittest, not medically intervened. Nature works, human intervention doesn't.

How far does that go? Would you get rid of anti-biotics or immunisations?

[Mojocvh]

BlackVanDyke said:

Centurion07 said:

Funnily enough I was thinking about this today, well, not exactly, but about the subject of how much public money is spent on certain things. I'll explain...

I'm a taxi driver and I work for a firm that has a few school runs, as do most other firms. Yesterday I did a run for the first time, that involved picking up a council-employed escort, then one child, and taking them home from school.

The total distance for this run from picking up the escort, picking the kid up, dropping him off and then dropping the escort off was around 80-ish miles for which I, as the driver, was paid £55 by the council via my firm. Add on the escort's wages plus any "commission" my firm take and this one child costs the county council nigh on £150 A DAY just to get to and from school.

This particular run is by no means a special case either. As I don't have my own run I tend to end up covering other runs when drivers are sick/cars are being fixed etc so I see quite a few of these. I covered a run a couple of weeks ago that was £50 each way for one child and I have heard of others that are even more money.

I don't have any solution to it but you have to admit that £150 every day for one child is ludicrous isn't it? Or is it just me?

It is ludicrous, although if there's no other choice then I think not unreasonable - children need to go to school, no matter what it takes to get them there. We can somewhat fix it by putting in place the support for children to go to their neighbourhood school as much as possible - then mum and dad can take them - and then by outfitting a few neighbourhood schools with units for those kids who really can't go to the local school that easily, to minimise the distance and time it takes to get them there.

Never forget, that to defend a budget, you have to use it.

[anonymous-user]

Our society does not simply calculate the amount that someone costs and set it against the amount that someone contributes. We don't draw up human balance sheets. Social policy is always utilitarian, but not quite that utilitarian. I am glad that our society is like this.